Molucca Islands

Baroness Cox: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What is their response to reports of escalating conflict in the Molucca Islands of Indonesia.

Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: My Lords, We have repeatedly made clear to the Indonesian Government our deep concern at the climate of tension and violence which continues to reign in a number of Indonesian provinces, including Maluku. My honourable friend John Battle raised the matter personally with the Indonesian Foreign Minister on 12th December in the margins of the EU-ASEAN Foreign Ministers' meeting. Representatives from EU embassies in Jakarta visited Maluku from 12th to 14th October. They found the situation in north Maluku to be much improved, but real problems definitely remain in Ambon.

Baroness Cox: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that encouraging but realistic reply. Of course, both Muslims and Christians have suffered in this conflict. However, is the Minister aware that recently the Lasker Jihad warriors have received reinforcements? They have stated that they will drive all the Christians out of Ambon and that no church bells will ring in Ambon this Christmas.
	Will the Government therefore urge President Wahid, who is committed to the principle of religious tolerance, to require the removal from the region of all the Lasker Jihad warriors to ensure that his military forces provide effective protection to both Muslim and Christian communities?

Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: My Lords, as one would expect from somebody with her expertise of the region, the noble Baroness asks a relevant question about the activities of the Lasker Jihad in Maluku. The Government have also heard reports of threats that church bells will be silenced in Ambon this Christmas. Such reports are extremely worrying. Robust action is needed to halt the violent activities of the Lasker Jihad and other groups which perpetrate violence and destruction in Maluku. We believe that President Wahid is committed to restoring order and promoting reconciliation between the rival communities. The noble Baroness is right to point out that he is committed to religious tolerance. The international community should continue to support his efforts.

Lord Clarke of Hampstead: My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for the concern she expressed in her Answer to the Question. In the light of that concern, will Her Majesty's Government consider sending human rights monitors to the Moluccas as a matter of urgency? Will they also consider whether or not emergency relief will be granted to these unfortunate people?

Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: My Lords, I can assure my noble friend that Her Majesty's Government will continue to monitor the situation in Maluku through the UN Resource Centre and the European Union Heads of Mission in Jakarta. We would also consider a follow-up visit to the visit in October, to which I referred in my first Answer. We would then address the matter after that.

Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: My Lords, does the Minister consider that heads of religious communities in the United Kingdom could help in mediation in this matter? Have the Government approached the Church of England and the Muslim communities in the United Kingdom? Positive action is demanded from the Government because great suffering is involved. It may be that our religious communities could assist in a small way.

Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: My Lords, I am sure that the noble Baroness who asked the Question is better able to expound the various connections between religious groups in this country and those in Indonesia than the Government. We are doing everything we can to facilitate conflict resolution in Indonesia, as we do in other parts of the world. It is up to religious communities, NGOs and religious organisations of all kinds to make their own direct links in the countries concerned, where relevant. However, I know that I do not need to point out to noble Lords that that must always be done with a high degree of delicacy so as not to fall foul of local sensitivities.

Lord Archer of Sandwell: My Lords, I appreciate the concern that the Government have undoubtedly shown. However, can my noble friend confirm that, unless there is an effective rescue operation, either by the Indonesian Government or internationally, thousands of innocent people are likely to be butchered? I appreciate that the Minister cannot answer for the Home Office. However, can she chance her arm and assure your Lordships that genuine refugees coming to this country will receive a sympathetic reception?

Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: My Lords, I never chance my arm at the Dispatch Box. However, I am sure that genuine refugees arriving in this country do indeed receive a sympathetic reception.

Lord Elton: My Lords, given the scale of what is happening in Indonesia, it is clear that if that was happening in the Balkans we would be in there by now. It is not sufficient merely to make representations to the responsible government. Will Her Majesty's Government urgently consider taking this matter to the Security Council of the United Nations?

Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: My Lords, the UN considered the situation in Indonesia and pronounced on it. It is unlikely that an approach to the UN Security Council at the moment will lead to any direct intervention inside Indonesia. The international community has said again and again--for example, in the European Union's statement of 28th November--that we fully support Indonesia's territorial integrity but are in favour of a strong, united, democratic Indonesia. We encourage the Indonesian authority to find a solution to regional disputes through dialogue rather than by force. We must remember that disputes exist in many parts of Indonesia, not just Molucca. There are those in Aceh, East Timor and so forth. All that the international community can do at the moment is support the democratic regime of President Wahid and try to give him all the help we can in his efforts to find peaceful solutions to the problems of his country.

Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, against the background of spreading violence, is it not particularly sad and regrettable that the armed forces are reported to be taking sides in a partisan way in some of the atrocities and violence? Is it not even more regrettable, in the light of the strongly-expressed EU concern in this regard and the European Union's code of conduct on the export of armaments, that there are reports that the French are supplying some of the armed forces with the weapons used in those horrors? Will the Minister look into that?

Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: My Lords, I cannot comment on the reports of French arms being used. However, there is no evidence that UK-supplied military equipment has been used for internal repression. We make every effort to ensure that no licences are granted for any such arms or military supplies.

Hepatitis C

Lord Morris of Manchester: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What recent new help they have given to those who were infected with hepatitis C by contaminated National Health Service blood products and the dependants of those who have since died in consequence of their infection.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, on 31st October the National Institute for Clinical Excellence recommended that patients suffering from moderate or severe hepatitis C should be given the combination therapy, Alpha Interferon with Ribavarin. My department will also make funding available to the Haemophilia Society over three years to help improve counselling for people with haemophilia infected with hepatitis C.

Lord Morris of Manchester: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for his reply. Is he aware that contaminated NHS blood products have now taken the lives of 1,000 people with haemophilia in what my noble friend Lord Winston has called the worst treatment disaster in the history of the NHS? Should there not be a public inquiry into the disaster, as the Haemophilia Society requests? Again, why cannot safer recombinant treatment be available to all adults and children in England as it is already in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland? And why cannot people infected with hepatitis C be given the same "no fault" financial help as people with HIV?

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I pay tribute to my noble friend as president of the Haemophilia Society for bringing this serious concern of what has happened to many people to your Lordships' attention. The Government reviewed the decision taken by the previous government not to offer financial assistance to haemophiliacs infected with hepatitis C through blood products. Our decision was that an exception could not be made to the general rule that compensation or financial help is only given when the NHS or individuals working in it have been at fault.
	There is no evidence that recombinant synthetic factor 8 and factor 9 are more effective or safe than plasma-based products. However, I understand the anxieties expressed by the haemophilia community. That is why we instructed health authorities to provide recombinant products to new patients and children under 16 with haemophilia. I understand the point made by my noble friend. I shall be meeting with the Manor House Group later today and with the Haemophilia Society in the new year. I am sure that this will be one of the issues we discuss.

Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, in a debate in March the Minister claimed that the department had no legal liability towards haemophiliac sufferers because blood testing was introduced as soon as technology was available. Recently, there have been reports in the Scotsman that regional directors of blood transfusion centres met in 1986 and decided not to go ahead with hepatitis C screening because of lack of time and resources. Does not that alter the complexion on the matter? Is it not high time the department altered its view and gave financial compensation to those sufferers?

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I have not seen the report in the Scotsman. I shall be prepared to look at it if the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, will pass it to me. But it is not my understanding that there is any move from the position that the English NHS was not shown to be at fault. As the noble Lord will understand, an inquiry by the Scottish Administration took place recently. However, that was not a general inquiry into hepatitis C and blood products. It looked specifically into whether or not Scottish haemophilia patients were exposed to the risks of hepatitis C for longer than they should have been, given the fact that Scotland developed successful heat treatment later than England. Scottish Ministers considered a report in that regard and concluded that there was no evidence that the relevant authorities did other than their best for patients.

Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I ask the Minister to think again about his answer when he said that there was no evidence that recombinant was safer than normal blood products. I thought it had been clearly established that all hepatitis C infections came about because of the product being derived from normal blood. Is it not a fact that one of the big stumbling blocks has been VAT on the chemical product? As we have been told repeatedly that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would investigate that matter, can the Minister say whether he has done so because such a move could save many people from contracting hepatitis C?

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, VAT issues are always under discussion, but I have seen no evidence that recombinant factors are more effective or safer than plasma-based products. That is the advice I have received. However, as I have said, I understand the concerns expressed by the haemophilia community and will be discussing them with the Manor House Group and the Haemophilia Society.

Earl Russell: My Lords, may I thank the Minister for small mercies? However, is he aware that the failure to respond to the question my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones asked about compensation discredits government and therefore diminishes the standard of our politics?

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I did not fail to respond to the noble Lord but I reiterated the Government's decision in the light of the careful review which they undertook when they came to office. These are difficult decisions but nevertheless one was arrived at--and it was the appropriate decision.

Heathrow: Fifth Terminal Inquiry

Lord Jenkins of Putney: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	When they expect to receive the report of the inspector appointed to inquire into the proposal for a fifth terminal at Heathrow airport.

Lord Whitty: My Lords, the public inquiry into the proposed fifth terminal at Heathrow closed in March 1999. The inquiry inspector then said that he intended to deliver his report within two years of the end of the inquiry but that he hoped to improve on that.

Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, I hope that the length of the report indicates that the issue is being examined with great thoroughness. I am sure that my noble friend will agree with that. However, is he aware that a fifth terminal at Heathrow would overcrowd a situation which is already verging on the dangerous? It is surprising that it takes two years to come to a conclusion which one might have thought was verging on the obvious.

Lord Whitty: My Lords, the inspector has taken what he considers to be appropriate time for the report. It would be wrong of me to comment further.

Lord Berkeley: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that even before the inspector has delivered his report on the fifth terminal, certain airlines, including BA, are reported to have been demanding a sixth terminal and a third runway at Heathrow? Will he pass to the airlines the Government's suggestion that the days of predicting and providing are over, because thought must be given to the severe environmental effects both in the air and on the ground?

Lord Whitty: My Lords, before I answer that question I want to point out that anything I say has no bearing on the Terminal 5 decision. Clearly, there is a problem of congestion on the ground as well as in the air and the environmental dimensions of aviation policy need to be addressed in the context of all those decisions.

Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that evidence has been given to the inquiry in one direction by the CAA, the BAA, the airlines and the trade unions concerned? Is that right or wrong?

Lord Whitty: My Lords, it would be totally inappropriate for me to comment on the evidence given to the inquiry.

Lord Hunt of Chesterton: My Lords, will the Government ensure that future plans for Heathrow will be consistent with their new noise strategy? Are they aware that studies carried out by the Department of Health show that noise has a significant impact on children learning at school, which should also be taken into account in any development plans for the area?

Lord Whitty: My Lords, again, I want to point out that anything I say in reply to the question has no bearing on the Terminal 5 decision. It is important to recognise that the noise climate around Heathrow has substantially improved during the past two decades. There has been a significant decrease in noise despite a substantial increase in the number of movements.
	However, today the Government are announcing new noise limits for aircraft departing from Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted to be implemented from 25th February 2001. The main provisions will be a reduction in the daytime noise levels by three decibels to 94 between 0700 hrs and 2300 hrs and during the night period the noise levels will be reduced by two decibels to 87.
	As regards the health aspect, there is a need to take that into account in the forward development of noise policies.

Earl Attlee: My Lords, will the Minister say how much the inquiry has cost?

Lord Whitty: My Lords, I believe that the total cost of the inquiry has been in the public arena. However, I cannot immediately turn to the amount. I shall write to the noble Earl.

Lord Faulkner of Worcester: My Lords, regardless of the decision which is ultimately taken about Terminal 5--and I am trying to be of help--does not my noble friend agree that it is imperative that public transport links to Heathrow airport are improved? In particular, will the Government take a sympathetic view of the plans to extend the Heathrow Express westwards, so that it will cover Reading and points west, and the plans for the new rail link from the south?

Lord Whitty: My Lords, again, without commenting on the Terminal 5 decision, surface access to Heathrow and other airports is an important dimension. All parties at Heathrow and other main airports are intent on increasing access by public transport of all kinds. The strategy for so doing is being developed within London and by the BAA and other authorities at Heathrow.
	In order to avoid my letter to the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, being lost in the Christmas post, perhaps I may indicate that the total cost of the inquiry to all participants is estimated at #83 million. Of that amount, the private sector is estimated to have spent some #64 million and in terms of government money the DETR and its agencies have spent some #6.2 million.

Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, does my noble friend believe that the long period taken to produce the report is indicative of a thorough examination being undertaken, not merely providing an opportunity for an untoward event to occur in the meantime? Let us hope that all will go well during the two years and that the conclusion will be that which I should have thought was obvious at the beginning; that Heathrow does not need and should not have a fifth terminal.

Lord Whitty: My Lords, I note my noble friend's remarks but further than that I could not possibly comment.

Hazardous Waste

The Countess of Mar: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they are contemplating any re-designation of hazardous waste products in order that they may be used as fuel.

Lord Whitty: My Lords, no. The definitions of "waste" and "hazardous waste" are set out in European Community directives. We cannot, therefore, unilaterally redesignate wastes as "products" or hazardous wastes as "non-hazardous" in order to facilitate their use as fuel. Many wastes and some hazardous wastes are already used as fuels in certain industrial processes and power-producing facilities. The use of waste as a fuel is strictly controlled as a waste recovery operation.

The Countess of Mar: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for confirming my belief. Is he aware of attempts by Castle Cement to undermine the directive and UK law by getting the definition of "hazardous waste" changed in order to use it as fuel? I understand that it is called "cemfuel" and that its constituents vary with each batch that is mixed. It can include waste pesticides, heavy metals such as arsenic and cadmium, and various other products which no one would normally burn. Indeed, the company has made an application for a new kiln at Padeswood in North Wales. Although it states that it will be a cement kiln, once it is built there is nothing to prevent the company from changing its use to one which burns hazardous waste. Will the Minister's department, together with the Wales Office, keep a very close eye on what is happening at that establishment?

Lord Whitty: My Lords, I find myself in a difficulty similar to that which arose on the previous Question. I am very much aware of the case involving cemfuels. The dispute relating to the application by Castle Cement is subject to judicial review which is to take place this week. I hope noble Lords agree that it is inappropriate for me to comment further. However, the department is fully aware of the points that the noble Countess raises.

Baroness Sharples: My Lords, how does a doctor know the way to treat a patient who has been exposed to cemfuel?

Lord Whitty: My Lords, the toxic effects of hazardous waste on the human body are fairly well known, and that is why the thresholds have been set at their present levels. Therefore, as far as concern the constituent elements the medical knowledge is there.

Earl Attlee: My Lords, can the Minister confirm that the Environment Agency carefully monitors the emissions of cement manufacturers and that Castle Cement burns a considerable number of redundant tars which would otherwise go to landfill?

Lord Whitty: My Lords, I confirm that to a degree the cement industry burns such elements effectively as fuel. Likewise, as to the role of the Environment Agency I confirm that, together with other regulatory agencies, it keeps a very close eye on the situation to ensure that existing European standards are enforced.

Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, is the Minister aware that, compared with other European countries, this country recycles a considerably lower proportion of waste and the proportion that is incinerated or put into landfill is considerably higher? What steps are the Government taking to increase the recycling of waste to match the 30 to 40 per cent achieved, for example, in the Federal Republic of Germany?

Lord Whitty: My Lords, the Government have recently developed a waste management strategy and are committed to developing recycling and renewable sources of energy. As the noble Baroness indicates, the UK recycles a significantly lower proportion of waste and the amount that goes to landfill is significantly higher. As to incineration, some Scandinavian countries and the Netherlands have commendably high recycling rates and also a significantly larger number of incinerators than the UK. Those incinerators are operated in accordance with very tight European regulations which apply in the area of incineration.

The Countess of Mar: My Lords, will the Minister look further into the matter raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Sharples? Does the Minister agree that because each batch of cemfuel is very variable doctors are unable to determine exactly the toxic chemicals to which their patients have been exposed? The data sheets merely refer to solids, liquids and gas.

Lord Whitty: My Lords, both the noble Countess and the noble Baroness may well have a point, and I am prepared to examine the matter. I believe that it is inappropriate to go further because of the judicial review relating to cemfuel that is currently taking place. But it is important to ascertain that, whatever the source of the emission, there is sufficient medical knowledge to enable doctors to treat anybody if emission thresholds are exceeded.

Social Security Fraud Bill [H.L.]

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to make provision, for the purposes of the law relating to social security, about the obtaining and disclosure of information; and to make provision for restricting the payment of social security benefits and war pensions in the case of persons convicted of offences relating to such benefits or pensions and about the institution of proceedings for such offences; and for connected purposes. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
	Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.--(Baroness Hollis of Heigham.)
	On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

Private Security Industry Bill [H.L.]

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
	This is the first of the programme of five Home Office Bills announced in the Queen's Speech to be introduced in your Lordships' House. It forms part of the Government's commitment to reduce crime and disorder and introduces for the first time statutory regulation into the private security industry in order to drive out criminals and drive up standards. This is a regulatory Bill but it makes straightforward and sensible arrangements for the private security industry. The Bill is entirely consistent with our general aim to keep regulation to the minimum necessary and to remove unnecessary controls. We propose to regulate those sectors of the industry where there is genuine public concern over the activities of the criminal or cowboy end of the business. We do not propose to regulate for the sake of it in areas where public concern does not justify action or where the regulatory burden might be disproportionate.
	The private security industry is a thriving and diverse industry which has grown rapidly in recent years. Where once the public may not have been aware of its activities, it is now part of daily life. We are all used to seeing private security personnel in shopping centres and department stores and in office blocks and delivering cash to banks and building societies. At present there is no statutory regulation of the industry. The industry has taken significant steps in recent years to improve its act and image through its highly responsible trade associations and training and inspectorate organisations.
	But voluntary self-regulation is not enough; it cannot deal with the criminal or unscrupulous elements within the industry. There are no effective controls to prevent such people leaving one area or one firm and setting up again elsewhere, which seriously hampers the work of the police in dealing with them. Clients of the private security industry, by definition, give privileged access to those who provide their security, and these providers are placed in particular positions of trust, with inside knowledge of their clients' weaknesses. This trust can be abused in ways which can have damaging or tragic consequences.
	A recent survey indicated that some 350,000 people were wholly or mainly employed within the private security industry. The industry has a total annual turnover of over #2 billion. Despite the industry's size and role, there is no proper regulation in place. That is why the public have reservations about the activities of those sectors of the industry which are particularly prone to exploitation by rogue elements and both the private security industry itself and the police have long sought statutory regulation. A statutory framework is the best way to drive out the undesirable elements and thus increase public confidence in the industry and the services it provides.
	We have waited a long time for regulation of the private security industry. In 1995 the Home Affairs Select Committee in another place recommended a proper licensing system. The Conservative government of the time decided, however, that statutory regulation was not the answer. They relied instead on the ability of the industry to regulate itself. The Labour Party said at the time that this response did not go far enough, and we indicated our intention to regulate the industry on our return to office. That is what we are doing today.
	Very soon after taking office we undertook a consultation exercise with those most directly concerned: the industry itself, the police service, local authorities and, importantly, the entertainments industry. As part of this, we met typical small to medium sized security firms. They saw regulation as a way to promote confidence in the industry as well as to protect the public. They were willing to be regulated, even if it came at a cost. Having considered carefully what we heard in these consultations, we published a White Paper in March 1999 outlining our proposals and inviting further comments. The White Paper has been deposited as a background paper to this Bill in the Library of your Lordships' House.
	The key aspects of our proposals were, first, that it was essential to vet people working in the industry in order to exclude criminal elements; secondly, that companies providing a recognised standard of service should be recognised through a voluntary inspection scheme; and, thirdly, that regulation would help to raise standards within the industry, building on progress made through self-regulation. We received roughly 180 responses to the White Paper, from a wide range of bodies, generally supportive of the proposals and strongly in favour of regulation.
	The Bill essentially reflects the proposals contained in the White Paper. Its overarching provision is to establish a new non-departmental public body. At this point I am sorry to have slightly to disappoint the noble Lord, Lord Cope, by confirming the suspicions which he raised during the debate on the Address: the new body will not be called "Offbounce". It will, rather more prosaically, be called the security industry authority, and it will have responsibility for licensing individuals offering services under contract in designated sectors of the private security industry; regulating those involved in door supervision--that is "bouncers"--and wheelclamping services, both those offering services under contract to others and those employed in-house; inspecting companies in response to voluntary applications and issuing approved contractor status to those meeting an acceptable standard; and setting and raising professional standards within the industry.
	The Bill extends to England and Wales, and has been welcomed by both the industry itself and by the police service. It does not apply to Scotland, which is considering what, if any, steps to take to regulate the private security industry there. The functions of the new security industry authority are clearly set out in Clause 1 and are essentially to license individuals and to approve companies with the help of an inspections regime; to keep under general review the private security industry and the legislative framework within which it operates; and to set, approve and ratchet up standards.
	Who is affected by the Bill is determined by the employment status of the individuals concerned and the type of security services they provide. Clause 3 defines the employment status of those who will be covered by the regulatory framework. All individuals directly providing security services themselves, their supervisors and managers, and the directors or partners of their company or firm will be required to have a licence. That applies also to those supplying services on an agency basis.
	Schedule 2 defines the sectors of the industry which are regulated. There are two main groups: those providing manned guarding services; and those engaged in immobilising vehicles; that is, wheelclampers. Manned guarding is a diverse activity but has the common feature of guarding premises, property or people. We have all encountered activities that will be caught within this definition: for example, the security guard sitting at a reception desk or on patrol in a shopping centre; his or her colleague patrolling premises at night; and others delivering cash to banks out of armoured vehicles.
	The Bill proposes that individuals in the manned guarding sector should be licensed if they are providing services under contract to a client. We do not propose to require them to have licences if they are employed in-house by companies. These companies will already have satisfied themselves about their employees, and the Government do not wish to foist on to them an additional layer of checking where it is not necessary. An important sub-set of the manned guarding sector regulated by the Bill is door supervisors--more commonly called "bouncers"--who are required to screen people entering pubs and clubs. There are professional and reputable companies and operatives providing door supervisor services. But the fact that door supervisors operate most often at pubs and clubs, particularly at venues where young people are likely to gather, has unfortunately meant that, on too many occasions, disreputable and sometimes criminal elements have infiltrated the sector.
	We know of door supervisors who have turned a blind eye to drug dealing on the premises they are meant to be protecting. Worse still, we know of door supervisors who have used their positions to deal in drugs themselves. There is an unhappy record of bouncers committing physical assaults against the public. The Bill therefore requires all door supervisors to be licensed, whether they provide their services under contract to a client or are employed in-house by a pub or club.
	The second important sector regulated by the Bill is wheelclampers. The mischief we are addressing is wheelclamping on private land; that is, land which is not a road to which the general public has access. Roads are separately regulated under the Road Traffic Acts. Owners of land must be able to take action against those who park on it without their permission, and wheelclamping, or at least the threat of it, may be a very effective way of dealing with irresponsible parking. However, it must be carried out in a reasonable manner. To some extent, case law has already enshrined these principles. In 1995, the Court of Appeal adjudged, in the case of Arthur and Arthur v Anker, that clampers had acted legally as adequate warning signs had been displayed, the release fee was reasonable and there was a reasonable method of payment.
	The judgment of the Court of Appeal provided useful guidelines to courts faced with similar cases, but only in the broadest of terms. It did not define a general standard for the size of signs or what a "reasonable" release fee might be. That leaves the motorist who is aggrieved by having his or her car clamped on private land with only limited practical means of redress. Unless the behaviour of the clamper is quite outrageous, the motorist may well be uncertain of his or her rights. Moreover, he or she might well be dissuaded from going to court by the potential cost of legal fees.
	This gap in the law needs to be put right. The Bill does this by ensuring that all wheelclamping on private land which is done as a business or as part of one's employment or for a release fee is regulated by a licensing system. Thus each individual who provides wheelclamping services to others will need a licence, as will his or her director or manager. We considered whether the licensing regime needed to cover wheelclamping by businesses of cars on their own land where they used their own employees--in-house wheelclamping, if I may call it that. We concluded that it did. Immobilising a car gives the clamper such power over the car owner, with all the inherent danger of that power being abused, that we would be leaving the public open to the risk of further abuses.
	However, in the case of in-house wheelclamping the Bill does allow the authority to avoid undue regulation by being able to require a licence only of the employer, if it is satisfied that the employer will vet employees to a suitable standard and ensure their compliance with all the requirements and conditions of the licence. Finally, the Bill requires a landowner to be licensed if he or she wishes to engage in do-it-yourself wheelclamping which involves charging a release fee.
	The Bill also regulates three other sectors: private investigators, security consultants and keyholders. These groups are much smaller than manned guards and wheelclampers and their activities give far less cause for concern. None the less, practitioners are in a special relationship of trust with regard to the security of their clients, and our proposals in the White Paper to take them into a statutory regulatory framework were welcomed. The Government believe that the public is justified in expecting those who offer such services under contract to be subject to a proper form of regulation. That is therefore what the Bill proposes for them. It does not affect operatives in these sectors who are employed in-house by companies; once again, we believe that employers' own screening processes are and should be sufficient.
	That completes my description of who will be covered by the provisions of this Bill. To summarise: all the individual employees, supervisors, managers or directors in the sectors I have described--roughly 300,000 people in all--will be required to have a licence. It will be an offence for anyone to engage in licensable conduct as defined in the Bill without a proper licence. It will also be an offence to take on as an employee providing security services an unlicensed person. A licence will be required for each designated security service provided. So, for example, if someone legitimately works as both a manned guard and a wheelclamper, he will need to be licensed for both activities.
	The Bill allows for exemptions from the need for a licence where an individual is already subject to a type of vetting that affords a level of protection for the public which is at least equivalent to that achieved by the criteria imposed by the authority.
	The authority will determine the criteria against which it will issue licences. The criteria will be published, so that those applying for licences--and the public--will know what are the requirements. There will be two types of criteria. First, the authority will check an individual's criminal record with the newly established Criminal Records Bureau. For licence applicants in all but one of the regulated sectors, the authority will obtain a criminal record certificate showing both spent and unspent convictions. Because of the particular concerns about door supervisors which I mentioned earlier, they alone will be the subject of an enhanced criminal record certificate showing spent and unspent convictions together with convictions for minor offences and local police intelligence.
	The Government believe that these exemptions from the provisions of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act are fully justified in order properly to license private security operatives. This belief was widely shared by those providing comments during our consultation period. The authority will determine what weight to give to any criminal convictions shown in these checks. It would be unreasonable to say that any criminal conviction whatsoever should automatically bar the grant of a licence; the authority will need to consider each licence application on its own merit and in the round. But it is likely that certain serious offences relating to violence or, in particular, drugs will disbar an applicant from gaining a licence.
	The second criterion that the authority will take into account will relate to skills and training. The authority will have an important role in setting and raising standards in the industry generally, and the Government will wish it to consider very carefully how to ratchet up minimum quality thresholds. The authority will clearly need to discuss proposals carefully with the industry itself. The authority will be able to attach conditions to a licence and it will be an offence to contravene them.
	The authority will also be able to refuse, modify, suspend or revoke a licence. Its criteria for doing so will be published. There will be a standardised system of licence applications and procedures and a standard format of licence to help with public recognition and to enable the licence holder to work anywhere in the country. The authority will be able to charge a fee for licence applications. We want this fee to be the minimum necessary to allow the authority to be self-financing. We do not want to erect artificial financial barriers to employment in the industry. We believe that that would be entirely counter-productive. The exact fee will be determined by several factors, such as the level of charge that will be levied by the Criminal Records Bureau, but we expect the fee to be in the region of #35 to #40 for a licence normally lasting for three years.
	There will be an avenue of appeal against the authority's decisions to refuse, modify or revoke a licence. I should tell noble Lords that, although Clause 10 is drafted permissively, it is the Government's clear intention to establish these appeal mechanisms. Although the Bill vests licensing powers centrally with the security industry authority, the Government know that many local authorities operate schemes to register door supervisors and wish to continue to have a role in licensing them. So, while setting licence criteria will remain the sole responsibility of the security industry authority, the Bill envisages the possibility of local authorities undertaking the grant of licences to door supervisors. However, we have no intention of foisting these duties on local authorities against their will and the authority, once established, will need to have detailed discussions with local authorities about the practicalities.
	The final major element of the licensing system will be a public register listing every licensed person and the terms on which they have been licensed. The public and, of course, the police will thus be able to establish clearly whether an individual is properly licensed to engage in regulated security activities.
	I should now like to move on and describe briefly the second main strand of the security industry authority's functions. The Bill establishes a system under which providers of security services who meet certain standards can obtain recognition from the security industry authority. The Government are aware that some bodies in the industry favour making this a compulsory scheme, but we have decided against this, at least for the present. We do not believe that the case is made out for imposing this additional burden across the board on the industry. We believe that the majority of reputable companies will want to seek approval under the voluntary system. Providers of security services will be able to apply to the authority for approval against a set of published criteria. If the standards are met, the company in question will be able to display in advertising the fact of its approval under the scheme.
	The supporting regime is similar to that for the licensing of individuals; that is to say, the authority will draw up and publish its criteria. It can withhold or delay approval until the criteria are met; it may attach conditions to the grant of an approval; and it may charge a fee for processing the application. An appeals mechanism against authority decisions will be established and there will be a public register of approved companies. It will be an offence falsely to claim approval under the scheme. It is important that the authority is able actively to police the licensing regimes it establishes. The authority will therefore have appropriately delimited powers of entry and inspection. Any regulated person--simply put, that is anyone who should have a licence--may be required to produce relevant documents or information about licensable conduct, as defined in the legislation. It will be an offence to obstruct any duly authorised person in the exercise of his functions and a balancing offence for any authorised person to disclose information revealed to him or her, except for the purposes of carrying out authority functions, or for any criminal proceedings.
	The Government believe that the benefits accruing from this Bill are several. For those important sectors of the private security industry that legislation brings under its wing, the security industry authority will, for the first time, introduce a licensing regime that is universal, consistent and, above all, transparent. By licensing all door supervisors, the authority will drive down the incidence of violence and drug offences in pubs and clubs. By licensing all wheelclampers, the authority will deter the cowboys who prey on innocent motorists. The authority will begin to ratchet up standards across the regulated sectors, and will continue to do so at a demanding yet realistic pace.
	The security industry authority will play a central role in the future relationship of the private security industry, the police, the Government and the public, whom we all serve. It will be important for the authority to work closely with the industry it will regulate in order properly to discharge its functions. But it is crucial that the authority is also wholly independent of that industry. This will enable the public to have increased confidence in the quality of the service and reliability in the specified sectors of the industry. This is, in turn, likely to lead to increased market opportunities for the industry. For all of those good reasons, I commend the Bill to the House.
	Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.--(Lord Bassam of Brighton.)

Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, this Bill is not controversial in its principle. The proposals have been widely discussed for some years and, as the Minister pointed out, they were the subject of a report published five years ago by the Select Committee on Home Affairs of another place. Studies have also been carried out by the Association of Chief Police Officers and others. As has also been said, the provisions have the support of the security industry, the British Entertainment and Discotheque Association, and other trade associations.
	At present, the industry has in place a measure of self-regulation covering at least the major firms. Furthermore, some local authorities have been running registration schemes covering part of the scope of the Bill. The Bill itself follows the lines of a command paper--it was not a White Paper--of March 1999. We accept the judgment of the Government that it is time to legislate. But we are always cautious about placing new regulatory burdens on industry, even when companies and trade associations ask for them.
	It is a truth universally acknowledged that when everyone agrees in principle about a Bill, then critical faculties are dulled and publicity is at its least. A Bill is then most susceptible to the law of unintended consequences. In case anyone does not know, this basic law of government holds that the unintended consequences of any legislation are normally greater than the intended consequences. In a case of this kind, governments and those in an industry focus on the intended consequences but other people on the fringes get caught up in the unintended consequences. It is for Parliament to try to spot and eliminate the unintended consequences. To this end, the regulations should be clear and kept to the minimum possible. We shall want to assure ourselves that the Bill does not go further than is necessary or desirable.
	New regulations are often desirable in themselves, but it is the totality of new regulatory burdens which makes life difficult for industry and business. I am not so concerned about big companies in the mainstream of the security business or those running clubs and so on. They have been consulted and will, no doubt, master the new regulations and forms because it is their business to do so. I am more concerned about companies and other organisations which are not primarily in the security business but which may find themselves involved because they have a security man or two. They probably do not know about this Bill yet and, in the nature of things, will not know until they find themselves in breach of some regulation brought in under the Bill. Few newspapers bother to record unsensational matters for the record these days, and so a new industry of parliamentary and government consultants has grown up to help businesses and others to watch out for the effects of legislation on their clients. I hope that they are watching this Bill, particularly if their clients have nothing to do with the security industry, because they are the people likely to be affected by it.
	The Bill is called the Private Security Industry Bill, but its effects will cover a lot of people and firms which are not involved in that industry--if one can call it an industry. I am thinking, in particular, of publicans who will be affected; some large pubs nowadays regularly have bouncers. Stewards at football matches will presumably be caught under the Bill, even if they are employed by the clubs themselves or work voluntarily. Those who run church halls may find themselves affected in certain circumstances. At the least, it would seem right to consider exempting functions not held for commercial reasons, such as private functions. If one's friends help to keep the wrong people from gatecrashing a party or a wedding in a hotel and so on, will that be an offence? They will, after all, be acting as bouncers.
	The core of the difficulty, as usual, lies in the definitions. One looks first to the definition of "licensable conduct". That turns out to be the carrying out of "designated activities". So we look for the definition of "designated activities" for the purpose of the Bill. Unfortunately that is not in the Bill; it will be contained in an order under Clause 3(3). I hope that the Minister agrees that the draft order defining "designated activities" should be available to us and to the public well before the Committee stage. We shall then know exactly what we are talking about.
	There are greater complications--at least they appear so to me--with the definition of "security operative". This is not defined in the interpretation clause, Clause 23, but in Schedule 2. Paragraph 1(1) of the schedule states that security operatives are those to whom a number of ensuing paragraphs apply. But sub-paragraph (5) of paragraph 2 states that the paragraph does not apply to someone who maintains order or discipline incidentally to activities which are not the activities of a security operator. That is a circular definition which I, at least, will need spelling out more carefully if I am to understand precisely those who are supposed to be caught or not caught. We know roughly from the Bill and the command paper what activities are to be covered, but "roughly" is not enough for the purposes of legislation.
	Turning to wheelclamping, firms which have a private car park for staff or customers will, in future, need a licence if they want to use the threat of wheelclamps to protect their car spaces from those who are not supposed to park there but find it convenient to do so when there is a shortage of car parks. I recently heard of a dentist, whose surgery is near some shops, who has had to resort to this protection. From what the Minister said, it is the dentist who will need a licence from the security industry authority rather than his employee who carries out the clamping should it prove necessary. I am not sure that the dentist in question, or others, necessarily realise that. I also know of a private club which is trying to preserve its car park for its members. Presumably it, too, will need to be licensed by the authority.
	In the Bill there are some examples of unintended consequences being eliminated in advance. Those who check tickets at the doors of theatres and so on are excused licensing under Schedule 2, paragraph 2(4). But, as I said, a publican who may need his staff to eject those who have had too much to drink will need a licence for each member of staff and for himself.
	Journalists are exempt from the requirement for a private investigations licence by reason of Schedule 2, paragraph 4(5). That exemption could go very wide indeed. Anyone who says that he or she is collecting information for the purposes of publishing it in a newspaper is exempt, whether or not there is any chance of it being published in a newspaper or anywhere else in the media. We all know that quite a lot of people have information which they would like to be published in a newspaper--they may have collected it for that purpose--but not all of them are journalists within the normal meaning of the word.
	With a general election coming up, I have looked at the question of political canvassing. It would seem that those seeking knowledge of who intends to vote for a particular candidate are exempt under Schedule 2, paragraph 4(9), which covers "market research". That is defined as,
	"obtaining information...for the purpose of analysing public opinion on any matter".
	That would probably get the canvasser out of the private eye provisions.
	At the end of the Minister's remarks, I was not sure about the position of someone who sends an employee to a bank to deliver or collect cash. If he hires a private security company to deliver or collect cash, that is covered, but I am not sure whether or not an ordinary firm or shop--which, for example, sends an employee to put money in the night safe last thing at night--needs a licence. Clearly cash in transit will be covered--or is intended to be covered--when it is carried by large firms, but an awful lot of smaller cash-in-transit operations go on as well.
	We shall also wish to examine the inclusion of training in the Bill. I am not quite sure what is envisaged and how much the authority will intervene in training, or, for that matter, to whom this officially approved training will be relevant. Presumably there will be some kind of national curriculum for bouncers and for those covered by other aspects of the Bill, but we shall inquire as to whether successful completion of training will be a condition of a licence. That would be going a good deal further. All this is to be controlled by the new security industry authority, although, as I have suggested, it goes much wider than is generally understood by the security industry.
	What kind of people will be appointed to the authority? The Minister says that it must be wholly independent. I agree. But will those appointed include a policeman--which I believe to be desirable? Is it intended, on the other hand, to exclude representatives of firms involved in the industry with their natural interest in seeing a monopoly for registered firms if possible? The nature of the appointments is certainly of interest.
	The Minister spoke also about appeals against a decision of the authority. Clause 10 provides for an appeal, but at present the provision is vague. It provides for the possibility of an appeal tribunal of some kind being set up, but there is no detail about what is envisaged. This is an important point. The livelihoods of some people will depend on the decisions of the authority. There may be people who have worked for some time in this area but who may find themselves unable to continue in their work because they cannot obtain a licence. They may lack the necessary training or they may have had a conviction in the past. So the authority's decisions need to be subject to appeal; otherwise, apart from anything else, the new Human Rights Act may come into play.
	The Minister did not say when the Bill comes into effect. Many people will be affected. The Minister says that 300,000 people will need to be licensed. That is a considerable job for the authority to take on; to examine the background of 300,000 people and to approve some and not others. There is a considerable turnover. In some parts of this industry it is 70 per cent. It is not just a matter of licensing 300,000 people and then just a few each year as new people take over. There is a much larger turnover than that. Some hundreds of thousands will need to be approved or otherwise each year.
	Part of the job may be delegated to local authorities. Again, Clause 12 is vague as to the exact intention. It says that the Secretary of State "may" permit some activities to be delegated to local authorities. I am not sure what the Government envisage.
	Next, there is the question of the disclosure of convictions. It is not clear to me whether spent convictions in particular--which are of more concern than recent convictions, because we all believe in the rehabilitation of offenders--will be disclosed only to the authority, or whether they will be disclosed to companies which make inquiries. I hope not. My initial thought is that they should be disclosed only to the authority. The authority should also be under an obligation, if such an obligation does not exist under current law, to keep confidential any information it gains about previous convictions. If local authorities are to have a bigger role in these matters, these questions must be asked about local authorities as well.
	There is also the question that I mentioned in the debate on the Queen's Speech regarding the responsibility of the new authority for the licensing process that it carries out. If, with the full authority of the SIA, a company employs a licensed guard, for example, to carry cash to the bank, and the employee turns out to be bent and goes off with the cash, can the company expect compensation from the security industry authority, having relied on the licence that the SIA awarded? Clearly, if the SIA were negligent, an ordinary civil action might be possible if a company had relied on it in employing the individual concerned. But is that the end of the matter? Is the authority to have any special responsibility towards those who will rely on the licences?
	There is a suspicion among those of a suspicious turn of mind--unlike myself--that the Bill may be a covert attempt to replace some of the functions of the police so that the private security industry, newly regulated, will in due course take over some of those functions. If that is so, the Government ought to let us know.
	I realise that the Minister will not be able to respond to a large number of detailed points today. Apart from anything else, we seem to be a rather exclusive band discussing the Bill. Apart from the Minister, no Labour Peer seems to want to contribute. Perhaps those on the Benches opposite want to get home for Christmas just that little bit earlier. I understand that I shall not receive an answer to many of these points today; however, we shall return to them in Committee, and there will no doubt be others. To appreciate the nature of the Bill, it is necessary to examine the detail, not just the general principles behind it. It may help to give advance warning of at least some of the matters that we shall want to raise in the later stages to permit the Minister to respond more easily.
	I agree with those in the industry who point out that effective security of this character helps to prevent crime and that if it is in the wrong hands crime can be facilitated. That is the underlying justification for the Bill--which I accept. However, new regulations that apply to a wide range of businesses must be thoroughly scrutinised and justified.

Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, we on these Benches welcome the Bill. We shall try constructively to suggest ways in which it may be improved. I have to agree with the noble Lord, Lord Cope, that many aspects of the Bill are vague and the purpose behind the provision needs to be clarified and that the terminology needs sharpening up.
	In an industry of this size, with a #2 billion turnover, one needs regulation of this character. There are estimated to be 125,000 active security officers in the United Kingdom. To give some idea of that proportion, it is the equivalent of the number of police officers that we have in this country. Greece is the only European country where the industry remains unregulated. Although the fetters of regulation are not always acceptable, they are certainly necessary in an industry that directly affects the safety and security of the public. I suggest that in this field a balance needs to be struck between permitting free competition between legitimate enterprises that provide security services, and a free-for-all in which pilot organisations of unscrupulous people may come out on top.
	The security industry authority may well have a larger remit than the Government appear to envisage from their financial calculations. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Cope, in that respect. The Bill sets out a wide range of functions. In addition to licensing and approvals and appeals therefrom, there is monitoring, inspecting, the setting of standards of conduct, training and levels of supervision. Could all these functions be carried on a self-funding basis, as envisaged by the Bill?
	In the White Paper the recurring costs were estimated at #1.68 million annually, on the basis of an administrative staff of 22 and seven inspectors. That was the level of staffing that was suggested. On that basis, the individual licence fee in the White Paper was put at about #22. I noticed today that the licensing fee has been put up into the region of #35 to #40. I suggest that those estimates of staff and costs are wildly out and that, if the scheme is to be self-financing, there is the danger that fees may be prohibitive for the individual, or for the company or partnership that employs him. I also agree with the noble Lord, Lord Cope, that there should not be too high a threshold, which might create artificial barriers to employment.
	On the question of membership of the authority, as set out in the first schedule to the Bill, it seems to be entirely in the discretion of the Secretary of State. I respectfully suggest that consideration should be given as to whether it should be a requirement to have members drawn from the security industry, the police, police authorities, customer interests, employees and a balance of independent persons. I believe that the inclusion of someone from the security industry would be helpful so as to give an insider's view of how the industry works.
	However, the Government have drawn in their horns a little in a number of respects since the White Paper was published. For example, the White Paper encompassed regulation of alarm installers. In paragraph 5.12 it stated that,
	"although reputable companies do exist [at the lower end of the domestic market] it is likely to be those that are most vulnerable who will be most at risk from unscrupulous operators. Concerns also exist about the probity of those running companies ... and those who install alarms in people's homes. It is particularly important in terms of public safety that those who install alarms in private homes, where there may often be only a sole occupant, should be of good character. Those who install or maintain alarms and CCTV systems have a unique opportunity to gain inside knowledge of the systems which could be used to facilitate or commit crimes".
	That is what the White Paper says, but the Bill says nothing about alarm installers. They are not to be regulated. One wonders what has happened. Was there, or is there, a problem about alarm installers? Are there any statistics on the amount of criminality that is derived from the installation of alarms, as set out in the White Paper? Why has this change of policy taken place?
	Another area where horns have been drawn in relates to in-house security services. At paragraph 5.4, the White Paper said:
	"The Government believes that to exclude in-house security personnel from the scope of licensing would create an unacceptable loophole and reduce confidence in the system".
	But the Bill envisages that a firm can, without licensing, employ its own personnel for the purposes of guarding. Again, one wonders what reason there is for this very considerable change of policy.
	However, more than that, under Clause 4 the Secretary of State may grant exemptions from licensing requirements if he is satisfied that the company concerned has made, "suitable alternative arrangements". So the whole scheme of licensing is no longer designed to apply to,
	"the whole of the manned guarding sector",
	as the White Paper stated. Firms of the size of Group 4 will not have to bear the costs of licensing. Yet, paradoxically, that company has issued a briefing that calls for a mandatory system to apply to the whole industry. Perhaps I may declare a distant interest here in that I was advising Group 4 on its agreements 25 years ago.
	The scheme of the legislation is to establish a voluntary register of approved contractors; that is to say, it is only on the application of a particular company that approval will be considered. The conditions of approval are in the most vague terms. Clause 14(3) states that the applicant must comply,
	"with such technical and other requirements, as may be prescribed".
	He must also be willing to carry out the conditions of the approval, whatever they may be, and must "otherwise" be,
	"a fit and proper person",
	to be approved. That chestnut of a definition has made many at the Bar who specialise in licensing matters very happy chappies.
	But why does this have to be "voluntary"? In some areas, especially those that provide the "door supervising" function--the bouncers, who are bounced more often than they manage to bounce others--there is much to be said for requiring mandatory approval of their management, training and organisation. The noble Lord, Lord Cope, wondered what sort of training is given to bouncers. I happen to know that in a reputable firm door supervisors are trained in the application of various grips that are designed not to cause injury to the people whom they eject, for example, down the steps of the club and into the street. That is the sort of training that such door supervisors undergo; no doubt that also includes rage control, and so on.
	It would be flying in the face of experience not to recognise that turf wars do break out between competing companies of door supervisors. It is not enough that just the operatives should have individual approval; the companies that supply door supervisors should also require approval and be subject to the sanction of having that approval removed. In that way a rogue outfit could be put out of business altogether. In any event, there should be a provision to review the approvals of companies and organisations, whether voluntary or mandatory, at fixed intervals--say, every three years.
	Another weakness that we see in the Bill is the failure to create any mechanism to update the register. Although there may be informal arrangements between the police and the proposed authority to inform the authority of any fresh convictions, it should be a statutory requirement for either the police or a court to give particulars to the authority of fresh convictions when they occur. Of course, a sentencing court will know of the existence of a licence under the legislation from the antecedents of the convicted person. That is an area in the Bill which should be considered with some care.
	Pirate clamping is a recognised nuisance. The RAC has records of clampers threatening , for example, to hold a mother's three-year-old daughter to ransom until she collected #60 from the bank. In Sheffield, clampers demanded that a female motorist's gold tooth be handed over as payment and, on another occasion, a hearse was clamped outside a church, although there was a body in the back. Clampers have even demanded sex from a young woman who was unable to pay the removal fee.
	In Scotland, the courts robustly described such activities as "extortion" and "theft", but, as the Minister mentioned, the Court of Appeal in this country upheld clamping on a private business car park in Truro in the case of Arthur and Arthur v Anker. The miscreant Mr Arthur had seen the notice, which warned him of a clamping fine. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Bingham, who sat in the Court of Appeal at that time, said,
	"no wrong is done to one who consents".
	That gave rise to considerable debate in this House. The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, remarked that the law was inadequate and based on laws of some antiquity relating to straying animals. Unhappily, the then Conservative government did not have time to update the law before they left office.
	We are therefore glad that proposals have now been brought forward to deal with clampers. However, the problem is to find out what those proposals are. Part II of Schedule 2 states that the activities of such cowboys will be subject to additional controls. However, as far as I can see, it leaves it to secondary legislation to spell out what the controls will be. Some clarification of what is proposed would be helpful.
	The appeal tribunals were referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Cope. They are to be set up under Clause 17. Is there any precedent for the introduction of a judicial body of this nature by way of secondary legislation in a Bill such as this? I cannot think of such a precedent. I should be grateful to be told whether there is one. Appeal tribunals are, of course, necessary for the reasons that the noble Lord, Lord Cope, gave, but they should not be set up by way of secondary legislation.
	In the foreword to the White Paper the Home Secretary stated:
	"The Government's commitment to a partnership approach to crime and disorder as set out in the Crime and Disorder Act means that there will be the opportunity for the private security industry to play a wider role in securing community safety".
	What is that "wider role"? What did the Home Secretary mean by that? He also stated:
	"It has also been suggested recently that the private security industry might be able to assist the police by performing a form of complementary patrol service. The Government is considering the issue and welcomes constructive debate in this area".
	This has caused Fred Broughton, the chairman of the Police Federation, writing in this month's edition of that illustrious journal, our very own House Magazine, to state that the police have a real sense of foreboding. Mr Broughton writes of a huge suspicion and a powerful sense of unease in the police service about what is going to happen in the future. He wrote in the House Magazine:
	"Are the standards going to be lowered? Is the patrol of our streets going to be given up to a different body of people such as neighbourhood wardens? ... Are we going to start policing in a different way? Is the professional policing body going to withdraw to headquarters and bureaucracy and leave the street issues to a lower standard of policing?"
	If it is the hidden agenda of this Government that the private security industry should be brought up to scratch so that it can start policing the streets, the Government can rest assured that the Liberal Democrats will oppose such proposals to the utmost. Patrolling private property is one thing but private patrolling of public areas is little better than vigilantism.
	We Liberal Democrats have a mantra which is helpful to an insomniac like myself; namely, "More bobbies on the beat". We do not support any move which would replace the "size 12" of the bobbies on the beat with the cat-like tread of the Pirates of Penzance. I would welcome an assurance from the Minister that the Government envisage nothing of that kind in their proposals.

Lord Windlesham: My Lords, if this Bill in some ways is characteristic of the Government's disposition to regulate and to control, it is an irony that the need to regulate is sometimes enhanced by a characteristic of previous administrations.
	Not so long ago--it seems a different era--privatisation was a keynote of many policies of the then government and party to which I adhere. Who would have anticipated that such a diverse range of what had hitherto been regarded as essentially public service responsibilities would be delegated to private commercial organisations? In the penal field alone, I cite three examples: first, the escort to and from the courts of persons charged with criminal offences and remanded in custody; secondly, the establishment of some prisons, initially for remand prisoners, but shortly afterwards for adult or juvenile sentenced prisoners as well, to be built, staffed and managed by private sector companies; and thirdly, electronic tagging, a device to monitor the whereabouts of offenders subject to curfew orders or who had been released early from custody under home detention curfews.
	I may be wrong, but my recollection is that all those changes were opposed, often passionately, by Labour spokesmen in both Houses. Yet the White Paper issued last year by the Home Secretary, to which reference has already been made, sets out proposals to regulate the private security industry. It appears to accept that as each of the activities which I have mentioned is already adequately controlled by existing legislation there is no need for them to be included in the Bill. I ask the Minister to confirm that these three existing private sector functions--there may be others--at the heart of the penal system are excluded, even though they may be supplied by providers who will be regulated, such as Securicor or Group 4.
	The arguments for greater regulation of the private security industry are overwhelming, and have been for some years. It should be as extensive as possible and cover as much of the industry as can be practically arranged. It should not be confined to the manned-guard sector or to the other activities listed in the second schedule to the Bill. As has already been mentioned, the United Kingdom is now one of only two European countries--the other being Greece--where private security firms are not yet regulated.
	While the main employers and their trade association, the British Security Industry Association (BSIA) are responsible enough, and are to be commended for having readily co-operated with the Home Office and for setting up independent security inspectorates--having been encouraged by the Home Office to do so--the fact remains that there are still too many unsuitable persons operating in different capacities.
	In its evidence to the House of Commons Select Committee in 1995--this was referred to by my noble friend Lord Cope--the Association of Chief Police Officers estimated that some 2,600 offences a year were committed by private security employees.
	A Home Office study of door supervisors showed direct or indirect involvement in drug offences, and identified individuals working in the industry with a background of serious criminal offences. That is stated on page 27 of the White Paper. This must be one of the rare occasions where the leaders of an industry about to be regulated evidently want to go further than the Government. In welcoming the Bill the BSIA, through its chairman, accepted the extra cost of compliance, but expressed disappointment that in-house security staff and alarm installers had not been included in the licensing plans. The noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, made the same point. The BSIA chairman said that in order to confer greater credibility on an industry that had fought to protect its image from a minority of disreputable operators, the association hoped that Ministers would widen the scope of the Bill to encompass those areas.
	In the White Paper published as recently as March of last year, prefaced by the Home Secretary himself, outlining government proposals, a section was included which made a clear and unequivocal acceptance of the case for including staff in these categories within the licensing scheme. Paragraph 5.12 states:
	"Those who install or maintain alarms and CCTV systems have a unique opportunity to gain inside knowledge of the systems which could be used to facilitate or commit crimes. Security firms are also tending to offer a whole 'package' of security including alarms, CCTV and security guards and it would be wrong if one part of the business had to be licensed but the other did not.
	"The Government therefore proposes that all those who install, monitor and maintain alarm systems should be licensed".
	In reply, will the Minister explain why there has been a change of mind and, if so, whether he is ready to accept amendments or further debate on the matter in later stages of the Bill?

Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I intend to confine my remarks to the issue of wheelclamping on private land. To my recollection, this has been debated in this House and elsewhere for at least 10 years. It has been debated frequently here. The previous government issued a consultation paper in 1993. I am glad that, finally, something is being done about it. It is an industry worth an estimated #150 million a year.
	There have been many examples of abuse, including cowboy firms wheelclamping vehicles on land that was not even theirs and having no authorisation from the owner to do so. There have also been cases of a bizarre and excessive nature. Until a couple of years ago, I was for a number of years on the public policy committee of the RAC. I recognise the examples given by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, of the gold tooth and the hearse. There are others. Unfortunately, there is a large number of cowboys.
	As has been said, in Scotland in 1992 the Lord Justice General ruled that clamping on private land was extortion and theft. He said that an activity as sensitive to abuse as wheelclamping requires careful regulation under law. Since then, in Scotland the activity was judged illegal. In England it has been allowed to carry on. The Minister referred to the case in 1995 which brought some clarity to the issue.
	I agree with the Minister that, of course, the private landowner is entitled to protect his property from those who would take advantage of it for parking without paying the fee. That refers not only to the private landowner but the public landowner as well. Hospital car parks spring to mind, especially in London and other major cities where adjacent on-street parking can be very expensive. I welcome the parts of the Bill which will license those who undertake this activity.
	However, aside from complaints about some who are thoroughly disreputable, which I hope licensing will address, the way in which the activity is conducted must be considered. Some of the main complaints have been that the piece of land is not adequately signed to warn you that your car will be clamped if it is parked there or if the fee is not paid or if you have overstayed the time limit. Clear instructions are needed about how to get the vehicle released and how much it will cost. I believe that the cost should also be reasonable, not extortionate, and probably in line with the charges for on-street parking. We need to know the name of the clamping firm involved. We need to know the hours during which it can be contacted for release and how long it will take from contacting the company to release.
	I believe that a written contract with landowners authorising clamping on their land should be available for motorists to see. The size, number and format of warning signs should be standardised. A standardised appeals procedure should be established and special provision made for the disabled. Motorists should be free to pay by cash, cheque or credit card and given a reasonable time in which to find the money. Cars should be towed away only if they are to be stored in a secure compound whose address is given to the motorist involved. A receipt should be provided; and vehicles should be released immediately after payment.
	The Minister will probably say that all that and more will be covered in the regulations made by the Secretary of State or by the authority. But I should like to see at least some of them on the face of the Bill. I shall hope to move amendments in Committee to do just that unless the Minister can persuade me otherwise. As the Lord Justice General of Scotland said, it is a sensitive issue requiring careful regulation. I think that the public are entitled to see provisions on the face of the Bill so that there is consistency in all areas of the country.
	The Bill is already quite specific in the details of the conditions for obtaining a licence but it is silent about the operation. I believe that it should be more specific.

Viscount Goschen: My Lords, this may not be a party politically controversial Bill but, as my noble friend Lord Brabazon indicated, it deals with some extraordinarily sensitive issues involving the potential confiscation by wheelclampers of one's property and the means of personal travel, and the restraint of private individuals by private sector employees. I believe that the proposals to some extent deal with earlier initiatives of the previous government when in office. Clearly if we are to have a regulatory system, it must work well. There will be many difficulties when we discuss the detail of the Bill.
	There could almost be a parallel--I do not go too far down that line--with the vexed issue of the regulation of minicabs. Regulation is required. The industry currently, and somewhat unfairly, has a poor reputation in some quarters caused no doubt by a minority of companies which practise less than reputable schemes. We welcome the fact that the Bill is supported by the security industry but there may be difficulties with regard to the detail.
	If we put in place a system of regulation which looks powerful but is not, I suggest that we shall be worse off than if we had done nothing or if self-regulation had been left to the industry itself. Therefore, we must be extremely clear about the exact level of scrutiny that the new authority will take forward.
	I suggest that uncertainty currently exists in relation to the powers of private security operators. I should have thought that a census of individuals employed in the industry--particularly perhaps in the marginally less reputable end of the industry--would provide a number of different answers about what the powers of, for example, doormen or bouncers would be if customers were unruly or drunk or had committed a criminal offence on a property. With regard to restraint, the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, referred to his knowledge of arm locks and so forth. However, clearly the doormen would be at risk of facing criminal prosecution if they exceeded their authority. With the passage of this Bill, I hope that the new authority will be able to shed light on that specific issue.
	With regard to the dealing of illicit drugs in night clubs, there appears to be a considerable body of evidence that some disreputable doorkeepers not only turn a blind eye to the dealing of drugs but are actively involved in it themselves. Therefore, I believe that we should look closely not only at the regulation of the individual but also at the companies which employ them. I shall return to that matter a little later in my remarks.
	On the subject of wheel-clamping, we have heard a number of examples of cases where less than reputable practices have been deployed. Indeed, in some circumstances it would seem that traps have been set for the very purpose of generating fines or fees for the release of vehicles rather than providing parking facilities for authorised personnel. The principles behind the level of fees, the type of service offered by the declampers in terms of their response time, the placing of notices, and so forth, clearly all require more scrutiny.
	The implementation of this Bill could well be central to our consideration of it. A large number of people potentially will require regulation--we have heard various figures mentioned referring to between 150,000 and 300,000 individuals. It is a substantial task, and I refer back to the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, regarding the number of people who will be deployed to ensure that the licences are issued in a reasonable time. I believe that we shall need more information from the Minister regarding what a reasonable time for the implementation of the schemes would be and what transitional arrangements would be in place when some people were licensed and some were not.
	I suggest that mistakes that may be made during the roll-out of the scheme, with a great deal of pressure being applied to the new authority to issue licences. If it were to succumb to that pressure, mistakes made at that stage, perhaps due to a lack of resources at its disposal, could be prejudicial to the whole scheme.
	Similarly, I am sure that in Committee we shall pursue in some depth the definitions of who will and who will not be covered by the Bill. We can all think of examples which throw up lacunae. We have heard about people who install alarms. I understood that the Bill made provision to cover those who advise on security issues. Perhaps the Minister could refer to that in his closing remarks. I should have thought that someone who was fitting an alarm, for example, could be said to be advising on the security of a house; so, for that matter, could a locksmith, a builder or a double-glazing company.
	We have also heard about the exemptions within the Bill, such as those that relate to people for whom security work is incidental to their principal role within a company. That appears to be a vague definition. Similarly, we have heard about journalists being exempted. I am sure that that is not the case simply so that the Minister may receive a fair wind for his Bill in the press. On the other hand, who is a journalist? If I submitted a short article on this very measure to the House Magazine, perhaps I could be considered to be a journalist and would then be allowed to rummage around in the rubbish bins of the glitterati in order to further my career and generate money. Perhaps I would be covered; perhaps I would not. I believe that we shall require further clarity on that issue.
	Standards are most important to this industry but they appear to vary considerably. I suggest that there is some justification for a varying of standards; for example, the doorkeeper at White's Club has a different set of skill requirements to a bouncer at an East End nightclub where 2,000 young people are attending a rave party. Thus, I return to the issue of training, which is so closely linked to standards. We hope that the Bill will give a harmonisation of standards where appropriate, and a harmonisation upwards.
	Finally, I consider the balance between the regulation of the employee--the individual security guard or bouncer--and the regulation of the company which employs him to be absolutely vital. Clearly, close regulation of the individual is one strand of the issue. However, perhaps it could be said that the real villainy is to be found in the employment of sub-standard bouncers and doormen and those of a criminal tendency.
	Surely, if we are to have a system of regulation, it must work. That means that considerable emphasis must be put on those who have the most to lose; in other words, the company which employs the doormen. I am sure that such companies would be willing to sacrifice one or two employees who could easily be replaced by fresh doormen, perhaps from other parts of the country. That would not be a very strong sanction, but I suggest that a greater focus on the company would be. Therefore, I am not clear why the approved contractor scheme is voluntary. We know that in other industries--for example, the financial securities industry--both the individual personnel and the companies that employ them are regulated. There are good reasons for that. I would draw a parallel with the security industry itself.
	In our consideration of the Bill it is clearly our duty to ensure that the regulations work and that the public can derive from them the comfort that they need. We shall return to these issues in Committee.

Lord Gladwin of Clee: My Lords, with permission I should like to intervene briefly in the debate. Before doing so, I declare an interest. For 30 years I was an official of the GMB trade union--the major union in the security industry. Therefore, on behalf of that union and others, I give the Bill a warm welcome.
	The Bill is the culmination of years of campaigning to persuade successive governments to introduce a legislative framework for regulating this industry. However, I wish to put one or two concerns to my noble friend. The Bill still contains a voluntary element in that registration will be voluntary. I believe that that means that no minimum standards of operation will be in place. Companies which do not register and which do not meet the voluntary standards will still be allowed to operate legitimately. I would welcome an assurance that my noble friend will not allow a return to the two-tier system in which cowboys or disreputable elements in the industry undercut and undermine reputable security companies.
	Finally, there is the question of the membership of the authority. That matter was referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, and other noble Lords. The authority must be independent; it should have an independent majority. But we need people on the authority who know about the security industry. Even if they are not direct representatives of the companies, they must be experienced in the industry. I ask my noble friend to ensure that representatives of people who understand the aspirations and concerns of employees in the industry also have a voice and a place on the authority.

Viscount Astor: My Lords, the Minister looked rather lonely on the speakers' list at the beginning of the debate. He had no support from his side. But the noble Lord, Lord Gladwin, has come to his rescue and showed that not all his party have gone home for Christmas.
	The Bill will set up the security industry authority. As the Minister said, and as I understand from the industry, up to 300,000 people may be employed by the industry. As my noble friend Lord Cope has pointed out, there is a large turnover within the industry. It is up to 70 per cent in certain areas, but, practically, the average may be 50 per cent.
	Therefore, this new quango, which is what it is, could in its first year have to deal with up to 450,000 new licences. That is a very steep task for the body, particularly, as we have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, given the Government's original plan for the number of employees it is to have. We need to be assured by the Minister that it will be able to deal with this huge task. It is not just a matter of issuing licences; it is a matter of looking into the backgrounds of those people who are going to be employed. At the moment, if any quango, police force or regulatory body was suddenly asked to issue an additional 450,000 licences to people, it could not possibly take on that job and deliver them.
	The major grey area in the Bill and the biggest problem that it poses relates to the transitional period. How will it work? My noble friend Lord Goschen was concerned about that. How long will it take to process all these applications? Have the Government done any assessment of how that will happen? The industry cannot just grind to a halt because the new authority has not managed to process the applications. What is going to happen? It has been suggested that if an application is put in to the authority in the transitional period, the power given to the Secretary of State in Clause 2 might cover the matter. But I should like the Minister's comments on whether that is the case.
	We must consider also that under Clause 2 the Secretary of State has a wide power with regard to the licence. Indeed, if one then looks at Clause 7, one discovers that the new authority will be able to set additional conditions over and above those that are prescribed by regulation. We do not know what those additional conditions will be. We do not even know in which areas they may be. Will they be conditions depending on the nature of the individual or conditions depending on the nature of the job? The Minister needs to tell us how that will work. Furthermore, before we get to Committee stage we need to see what the Secretary of State has in mind in terms of some of those powers.
	In Clause 12 there is a power for delegation to local authorities. The Minister has not explained how that will work. I should like to know what consultations have been carried out with local authorities. Have any of them agreed in principle that they will take on that responsibility? How will local authorities deal with the sensitive information that will be made available so that they can take on the programme? I should like to know, for example, whether a local authority, say, Newcastle, will be able to issue a licence that will work in London. Will it mirror a national power or will it relate only to the local area? We need to know much more about that, because there will be enormous gaps and we shall end up with a mishmash of responsibilities between local authorities and the new proposed security industry authority.
	We know what the Government intend, but it is not clear exactly what is covered by the licence. My noble friend Lord Cope asked whether it included stewards at football matches. How does one define in-house security personnel? What happens if he or she steps outside for five minutes?
	My noble friend Lord Windlesham raised some extremely important points about whether the Prison Service and the transfer of prisoners and such issues will be covered. I look forward to the Minister's replies on those questions.
	There is an important point of principle with regard to spent convictions. Under the Bill the authority will have the power to look at those. But if spent convictions are to be disclosed and taken as a factor for any job within the industry, how does that stand with the Government's intention that under the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act--which they supported--someone may have a clean start? It would be wrong totally to exclude anyone like that from starting in this industry. Therefore, I should like the Minister to expand and explain the Government's thinking on this issue. Is he saying that no one who has ever had a criminal offence of any kind will ever get a job and is automatically debarred and excluded by the authority?
	Perhaps I may turn to training. Noble Lords would like to know whether or not that will be subject to licence conditions. What will be the requirements? Will they vary from place to place? If a local authority issues a licence, will there be different training from that available if the new authority issues one? The noble Lord, Lord Thomas, called it "training in rage control". Are we going to have rage control NVQs? It will be interesting if door supervisors have to undergo such training.
	There are order powers in the Bill. In Clause 3(3) there is a definition of "designated activities". I repeat again, it is crucial to the way we look at the Bill to know what is in the Government's mind.
	The Bill is supported by the industry; but it is supported particularly by the larger operators in the industry which have the resources and the money to fulfil all the conditions that are required. However, we are not concerned only with the larger operators; we are concerned also with the smaller operators and how the provisions will work for them. It is extremely important that this is not something that drives out small operators, leaving only two or three national companies in the industry because they are the only ones that can fulfil the complicated requirements.
	Perhaps I could briefly turn to wheelclamping. That is an issue that concerned my noble friends Lord Goschen and Lord Brabazon of Tara. There have been some terrible problems with "rogue clampers" or "dodgy clampers". We need to define the controls on these people by secondary legislation under the Bill, otherwise we run the risk of legitimising "dodgy clampers". That is a real risk that we need to consider closely. As my noble friend Lord Brabazon said, we need to look at all the issues surrounding that.
	This is a new quango. It is largely welcomed. It will imposes costs on the industry. But there will be continued pressure--as with all quangos--for it to extend its remit. It will be tempted to extend its remit. So we need very clear boundaries on what it is and is not going to do. As we have seen, the authority can place conditions on licences over and above any that are required by the Secretary of State. In other words, the authority can impose any requirements it thinks up on the day. They might be fair; they might not be fair. We shall have to consider whether that is a fair use of power. Indeed, we shall have to consider the Government's proposals relating to who will serve on the new authority.
	I declare an interest as a director of a public company which has 12 bars; 10 of which are in London's West End. The company has over 650 employees, over 80 of whom are what one might call "door staff". I am told that we have an average number of customers (approximately 60,000 per week), so it is a substantial business. On a Saturday night, we probably have 12,000 people drinking in our bars. As far as I can see from the Bill, at least 80 security staff will be included under its provisions, as will managers and, indeed, directors. I am a director of a holding company which is a quoted company. If I have to apply for a licence, I shall do so as fast as I possibly can. I shall give the Minister's name to the new authority as a referee. I am sure that that will mean that the licence will come winging back by return of post.
	However, perhaps I may raise a serious issue about licences, as there is some confusion. Will doormen in hotels be covered by licences? They stand on the street and decide who may or may not enter an hotel. If the Doorkeepers in your Lordships' House go out to the car park or into the public road to assist your Lordships, will they be covered by this licence? We shall have to consider that matter carefully. Unless we get right the definitions, the Bill will not work. In all Bills, particularly those that emanate from the Home Office, the devil is always in the detail. However, we shall consider closely the detail during the Bill's stages through this House.
	Perhaps I may end by repeating an issue which I regard as of supreme importance. If we are to give the Bill proper scrutiny in Committee--we all look forward to doing that--it is crucial that the Government publish in draft the orders that they intend to lay alongside the Bill. Without that, we shall not be able to see how the Bill will work.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I listened with more than the usual level of interest to the debate and the comments on the Bill. I am pleased that there seems to be a fairly unanimous welcome for the Bill, even if there is not unanimous accord to all its details and content.
	The other matter which I find particularly pleasing this afternoon is the concern expressed by Members of your Lordships' House to get right the detail of the Bill. I believe that the Committee stage will provide a useful scrutiny of the Bill because there is much interest. We have just heard from the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, that he has an interest to declare. I am sure that is of value to us because he speaks from personal experience.
	It was personal experience which excited my interest on Saturday evening. One of the delights of being a Minister is that one has to experience much of the legislation, or at least where it will be put in place. Sussex Police kindly extended to me an invitation which I could not possibly refuse--after all, it was from the police. There I was, on a cold, windy, Hastings seafront at one o'clock in the morning watching how the industry operated and how the police interacted in a spirit of partnership. I have to say that I would have preferred to have been in bed. Nevertheless, it was instructive and most helpful.
	A number of questions have emerged about the detail of the Bill. I know that I shall fail in my duty to respond to all of them; I give notice of that. However, I shall try to work through some of the points raised. Those that I miss I shall happily add to the burden of the correspondence department of the Home Office and pick up later if Members of your Lordships' House wish me to do so. No doubt we shall return to many of the issues in principle and detail in Committee.
	Perhaps I may start with the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Cope, who generally welcomed the effect of the legislation. He seemed unsure as to whether he wanted more or less regulation. However, he nevertheless welcomed the legislation. He asked a number of specific questions, one of which concerned the impact of the Bill on small companies, not primarily in the security industry but those which may be caught because they have a security man or two at their disposal. To some extent, the Bill will catch publicans. To some extent it will catch stewards at football matches. If they are provided in-house, they will not be subject to regulation because it will be assumed that the company, the football club, will have properly trained them and will be responsible for improving standards and so forth. However, if in the instance of stewarding football matches the football club decides to hire in a company, licensing will apply. Perhaps I may reassure the noble Lord that it is certainly not our intention to catch companies not involved in the private security industry. The Bill is clear as to who is meant to be covered. Regulations will obviously further clarify inclusions and exclusions.
	The noble Lord, Lord Cope, also raised the issue of a need for a draft order showing designated sectors and suggested that it should be available before Committee. The authority will need to get up and running. We believe that probably in the first instance there will be no real need to bring forward draft orders, as the noble Lord suggests. However, we reassure him that the first sectors in terms of priority of implementation will be manned guards and wheelclampers and there will be careful consultation on those sectors.
	The noble Lord also asked about a particular instance where an employee might be sent to a bank to deliver or collect cash. In such circumstances the person would clearly not be a private security operative as defined in the legislation and would not be caught by the Bill.
	The noble Lord, Lord Cope, also asked about the role of the authority in setting standards in training. He asked whether successful completion of training would be a condition of the licence. That may well be the case. It will not be for the authority to decide the precise conditions. However, I think that there will be a firm obligation set out on training. That is clearly one of the defined areas of interest for the authority to take carefully into consideration.
	The noble Lords, Lord Cope and Lord Thomas, asked about composition of the board. They asked whether it would contain members of the police service and exclude members of the industry. ACPO will be invited to nominate a representative. The inclusion or exclusion of industry representatives will be given careful consideration. It is important that the authority has advice from the industry and the sector. However, the way in which we might provide for industry representation will have to be carefully and clearly constructed so as to provide for the authority's independence.
	Perhaps I may also make that observation in reply to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Gladwin, about the importance of ensuring that employee representation opportunities are provided for.That is a matter which we shall have to carefully consider, but we must protect the independence of the authority.
	The noble Lord, Lord Cope, asked about the reputation of the industry as a prelude to contracting out police core functions. A number of Members of your Lordships' House raised the issue of whether the regulation of the sector is a precursor to a further extension, as they saw it, of privatisation within the police service. That is not our intention in bringing forward the Bill. We have no great desire to contract out core police tasks. We believe that the police service is properly in the public sector. As many of your Lordships will know, we have spent extra resources and put more money into the police service. We want to shore it up. We do not want to hack away at it for fundamentals. There is no intention of using this as a precursor to any form of contracting-out, though we fully recognise that in some circumstances within the criminal justice system, as the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, said, it has been entirely appropriate for contracting-out to be used.
	The noble Lord, Lord Cope, also asked whether spent convictions would be disclosed only to the authority. I can say positively that that will be the case; there will be no need to disclose spent convictions to anyone else.
	The noble Lords, Lord Thomas of Gresford and Lord Windlesham, asked about the position of alarm installers and why, when there had been clear reference in the White Paper to the need to regulate that sector of the industry, we, as a government, have since had a rethink. We take the view that that sector is already well regulated. It already has to meet high police and insurance standards and purposes. Also, it consists of many small businesses. As the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, said, it would be unreasonable and perhaps unfair to squeeze out those small operators. We do not want to do that through what may accurately be described as disproportionate over-regulation.
	The noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, raised the question of why we exclude in-house guards. We have changed our thinking in that regard since the White Paper. In-house guards are vetted by employers and we see no need to add a further layer of bureaucracy. But the Bill is flexible enough to include them later by regulation if it becomes necessary or desirable.
	The noble Lord asked also about the compulsory approval of door supervisor firms to prevent violent "turf wars" developing. We hope that the arrival of the security industry authority will prevent turf wars. But we do not believe that the threat of withdrawal of approval will necessarily be a deterrent if companies feel that illegal activities are the way to gain their business objectives. Reputable companies will want to be approved. The absence of such approval will be a powerful market signal to potential customers.
	The noble Lord, Lord Thomas, also raised the fact that there was an absence of a requirement to update the register of licences. The Bill requires the authority to establish and maintain a register. So there is a requirement to keep the register up to date. The noble Lord asked also about the precedent for establishing appeal tribunals through subordinate legislation. I am advised that there are plenty of precedents of powers to create bodies being put into Bills, leaving their establishment to be delegated through secondary legislation.
	Finally, the noble Lord asked what the additional controls are to be on wheelclamping. Those controls are set out in the Bill and comprise the extra licensing requirements that apply to wheelclampers and bouncers. They are set out in paragraphs (g) to (j) of Clause 3(2) and a careful reading of that clause will bring out the information the noble Lord seeks.
	The noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, asked about the Bill excluding the running of curfews. The Bill regulates sectors of industry described in Schedule 2. It does not give new responsibilities to the industry so we do not believe that that eventuality will come to pass. The noble Lord also asked about alarm installers and I hope that I properly addressed that point.
	The noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara, asked about the way in which clamping is conducted and the costs, method of payment and written contracts with landowners. It was suggested that such provisions could be included on the face of the Bill. We agree that the manner of clamping needs to be well regulated. However, the level of detail suggested by the noble Lord should not go into the Bill; it is more properly dealt with in codes of practice. No doubt careful consultation in that regard will take place with the security industry authority when it is up and running.
	The noble Viscount, Lord Goschen, asked about the powers of private security operatives and the possibility of their being exceeded. He suggested that the new authority should shed light on the uncertainties and inconsistencies in that regard. I agree. But we take the view that the activities of door supervisors and others are already subject to laws of assault and other offences. The authority will no doubt want to consider excessive use of authority as part of the training standards. That makes good sense. It will also want to establish benchmarks and standards for managing those difficult situations.
	I believe I have covered most of the main points.

Viscount Astor: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, he did not cover the important issue of the transitional period. I look forward to his reply.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the noble Viscount anticipated me. There will be phased implementation of the Bill. We expect the authority to be set up within 12 to 18 months of the passing of the legislation. The points made by the noble Viscount were very relevant. As I said earlier, we expect early regulation of manned guards and wheelclampers because we see those as being a priority. We shall discuss carefully with the industry the implementation of the provisions. We are sensitive to the points made. We want to get this right. We believe that this is good legislation; it is legislation on the side of the angels. Because of the widespread consensus about its need and importance, we shall be careful in introducing it over a period of time. No doubt we can come back to that point in Committee and focus attention on it.
	I have spoken at length in covering all the points raised. I apologise for that. I am sure there is other important business for Members of your Lordships' House to undertake today, but this is an important piece of legislation. I am looking forward to its detailed consideration in Committee. We have had a constructive debate today. This legislation will go a long way to improving the quality of regulation of the private security industry. It has been long awaited and broadly welcomed. For those reasons, I commend the Bill to the House.
	On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Sudan

Baroness Cox: rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what is their response to recent developments in Sudan.
	My Lords, I am grateful for this opportunity to discuss Sudan and I thank all noble Lords who will be speaking this evening. I received a message from my noble friend Lady Park to say that, sadly, she has had to withdraw because of a clash in commitments. I am happy to say, however, that my noble friend Lord Elton is willing to say a few words in the gap.
	I particularly thank the noble Lord, Lord Carter, for replying for the Government. Without his willingness to accept that task, which is somewhat remote from his normal responsibilities, this debate would have been deferred. But the need is urgent. With over 2 million dead and 5 million displaced in recent years, Sudan's toll of suffering exceeds that of Rwanda, Somalia and former Yugoslavia put together.
	I emphasise that my concerns do not reflect a prejudiced, one-sided commitment. In our advocacy, we try to take into account all points of view and to be critical of those who violate human rights, whoever they may be.
	The Islamist National Islamic Front (NIF) regime, currently referred to as "the government of Sudan", took power by military coup, throwing out the coalition government. It represents no more than about 7 per cent of the people of Sudan and is hated by the vast majority. But, to hear all points of view, I visited Khartoum and the NIF leadership. I met their eminence grise, Dr El-Turabi; I heard President El-Bashir address the crowds for the celebrations of the fourth anniversary of the coup; I met many political leaders and visited many areas under NIF control. It was patently clear that the NIF is committed to a jihad. When I sent my report to our hosts as a courtesy, they endorsed it.
	The word "jihad" has many meanings. But I have since been to Sudan more than 25 times and in this case I can say that "jihad" means "struggle" in its most violent and brutal form. The victims include Africans, Arabs and the Beja people, Christians, Muslims and traditional believers. The weapons of the jihad include unlawful arrests, torture and extra-judicial killing of individual civilians; massive military offensives against civilian communities; the manipulation of aid; and slavery.
	This war is not a Muslim/Christian conflict. Many people who oppose the NIF are Muslims, such as the SPLM/A commanders, who are friends of mine, in the Nuba Mountains and in Southern Blue Nile. In Yabus, soon after NIF forces had been thrown out, I asked some Imams what they thought about the defeat of the NIF army in their region. They said that they were glad, as the NIF represents ideology, not "true" Islam, and that they could now pray as they ought to pray. They said that if the NIF returned, they would fight it again.
	One noble Lord has said that he will disagree with my analysis. Perhaps I may urge him not to underestimate the gravity of the situation we have witnessed in many parts of Sudan--unless he has visited those parts and can speak from first-hand experience. If I had been only to Khartoum and to government-controlled areas, or to areas in the south where the UN Operation Lifeline Sudan is allowed to operate, I would have no idea of the enormity of the suffering inflicted by the NIF on its own people. I might also believe the widely circulated misinformation as I could not put it in context.
	It is not only the NIF which violates human rights. Opposition forces, such as the SPLA, have been guilty, too, and we have criticised them. But Professor Eric Reeves, referring to the recently published Human Rights Watch report, highlights a massive asymmetry. While the SPLA is criticised for some diversion of civilian food aid and under-age military recruitment, for which the NIF is also criticised, he claims:
	"But no one reading this report will be under any illusion as to which is the overwhelmingly culpable party in Sudan's civil war ... the NIF receives--appropriately--far and away the most, and the harshest, criticism. There is only one side in the conflict (the NIF) that is engaged in the aerial bombardment of innocent civilians and humanitarian workers, there is only one side that is engaged in massive scorched earth warfare to secure the southern oil regions".
	Time does not permit many details, so I offer only one typical scenario: a massive military offensive against civilian communities in which low-flying helicopter gunships gun down people as they try to hide; then high-flying Antonovs drop 500 kilogram bombs; then ground troops come in combined forces, up to 2,000 strong, with government soldiers, Popular Defence Force mujahadeen and murahaleen tribesmen armed by the government. They kill men; beat old people, leaving them to die; and abduct women and children into slavery. They burn homes, churches, mosques, animist shrines, schools and crops. They steal and slaughter cattle. I could show your Lordships film footage of the times when we have gone "footing" for mile upon mile through the NIF's carnage and destruction.
	At the same time, the NIF declares these areas as "no go" locations for UNOLS and other aid organisations. The victims of the raids are thus left bereft of aid or advocacy. In Christian Solidarity Worldwide, we try to reach such people who are trapped behind closed borders, left to suffer and die, unreached, unhelped and unheard.
	The NIF does not like us going to "no go" areas for we see what it does not want the world to see. It has told us that it will shoot us out of the sky if it can; and it expends a vast amount of time and money discrediting us, as do its friends such as David Hoile, and the European Sudanese Public Affairs Council, who publish perhaps flatteringly frequent publications misrepresenting me, with selective quotations and distortions of my position.
	I turn to reality. Events in the past 18 months are a cause for growing concern. In the early winter of 1999, Bashir launched an effort to neutralise Turabi and contain his international terrorism empire. In the following months, Bashir expressed a desire to normalise relations with the Arab world and the West. To that end, he gave commitments to undertake serious internal reforms and to cease hostilities in the south so that western companies would come to develop the oil resources. However, the high-level Sudanese emissaries who delivered the message were misinformed by their president. While discussions were in progress, there was an escalation of fighting, including intentional bombing of civilian targets such as schools and hospitals, as well as granting the Chinese military widespread concessions and access to the oil fields.
	The NIF also invited Egyptian and Libyan expeditionary forces to assist in the escalation of the military drive in the south, beyond the capabilities of its own forces. In recent months, there has been the gradual rehabilitation of Turabi and the resumption of terrorism sponsorship operations; and the NIF-related policy of slave redemption has proved farcical. So one must sadly conclude that Bashir's initiative was a ploy or that he could not deliver because he is not in control. Either way, normalisation of relations with Sudan should not be considered with the current regime by anyone concerned with human rights.
	I highlighted two issues in my contribution to the debate on the gracious Speech. The first was the possible use of chemical weapons by the NIF and reasons why tests of a limited number of samples, which did not find toxic substances, in no way proved that the NIF had not used unconventional weapons. The second was concerns over the Government's sale to Sudan of dual-use supplies which could be used for civilian or military purposes, including chemicals which are known precursors for chemical weapons.
	Today, I add to the catalogue of concerns, first the ethnic cleansing of the African peoples who live in the oil-rich areas. Secondly, I refer to the continuing deliberate bombing of civilian targets, such as schools and hospitals, as recently as 24th November over Panlit village in Bahr-El Ghazal. Thirdly, I refer to, for example, the continuation of slavery, encouraged by the NIF. I pay tribute to the US Under Secretary of State, Dr Susan Rice, who recently visited Southern Sudan and met women and children who had been rescued from slavery.
	In August, I and CSW colleagues were in a nearby area and we engaged in the sad, macabre business of buying the freedom of 353 women and children. Those who have not been there criticise us for freeing slaves. They say that we are encouraging the slave trade. But that is not so. Slavery would persist as it is one of the weapons of the jihad and is used by the NIF for the forced Arabisation of Africans and the forced Islamisation of those who are not Muslims.
	Of course, buying freedom is not the solution. The solution must be to stop the slavery. But while slavery exists, I defy anyone to hear the women and children tell of their experiences as slaves; to hear them say, "If you were not here, we would not be here--we would still be slaves", and then to say to them, "I am sorry, you are going to have to remain in slavery".
	President Clinton has condemned the NIF for its brutal policies, including slavery. He hopes that European nations will do the same. But currently, in stark contrast to the robust stance taken by the USA, the British Government have been entertaining the NIF Foreign Minister with red-carpet treatment; encouraging trade with Sudan; enhancing the NIF's legitimacy; promoting its economy; and enabling it to use its resources more effectively to kill its own people.
	Sudan has also been condemned for sponsoring terrorism. It hosts Islamist terrorist training camps and exports terrorists to other countries. Muslim friends gave me a video of Sudan's jihad training schools. It was distributed to raise money for the jihad in Sudan and elsewhere. It gave an address in Leicester. Other people followed up the contacts and documented terrorist training centres here in England, where Islamist leaders such as Abu Hamsa and Sheikh Bakri Mohammed teach recruits not to obey the laws of this land; and terrorist techniques, such as blowing up aircraft coming into Heathrow airport. Sudan's involvement with international terrorism is well known and has been condemned by the UN Security Council.
	I conclude with three questions. Will the Government consider recommending "no fly zones" and "safe havens" to protect civilians from air and ground attacks? Will the Government give a lead to European partners by denouncing the barbaric practice of slavery and by giving no respite to the NIF until there is unequivocal proof that the slave raids are stopped and that every man, woman and child who has been abducted into slavery is freed and reunited with their families? In the land of William Wilberforce, the Government should do no less.
	Finally, I ask a question I asked last week: will the Government reconsider their policy of so-called "critical dialogue", which is long on dialogue and short on effective criticism? Will they consider a stance more consistent with the United Nations Security Council and the United States? Might they even consider helping to bring to account, as guilty of crimes against humanity, those responsible for the genocide, the ethnic cleansing and the slavery which are well and widely documented in Sudan today?

Lord Ahmed: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, for once again affording the House an opportunity to comment on some recent developments within Sudan. We have discussed that country on a number of occasions, and rightly so. Sudan, the largest country in Africa, is a nation and people with whom the United Kingdom has enjoyed a close historical and social relationship.
	I declare an interest. Before I came to this House I led a delegation of British local government councillors to observe the presidential and parliamentary elections in Sudan in 1996. Earlier this year I was there again, spending some time visiting the oilfields of south central Sudan as a guest of the International Council for People's Friendship. While my involvement has not been as lengthy or intensive as that of many noble Lords, I have followed Sudanese issues as closely as possible for several years.
	We continually hear what can only be described as preposterous claims about Sudan. Earlier this year we read in the Sunday Telegraph that 700,000 Chinese soldiers were either in Sudan or on their way to the Sudanese oilfields. This was so ridiculous a claim that even the Clinton Administration were forced to distance themselves from it. Perhaps the Minister can update us on whether Her Majesty's Government have any evidence of the presence of these hundreds of thousands of Chinese.
	We have also previously heard equally discredited accounts of several hundred Iraqi Scud missiles arriving in Sudan by some means. August of this year was the second anniversary of the disastrous American cruise missile attack on the Al Shifa medicines factory in Khartoum, which resulted from similarly unfounded claims. This House has spent considerable time discussing allegations about the use of chemical weapons in southern Sudan, despite the fact that dozens of samples provided by several independent, even pro-opposition, sources have been extensively tested by reputable laboratories in North America and Europe, including Porton Down in the UK, and have shown no evidence of such use.
	We should exercise considerable caution in listening to what is said. It is perhaps time to discount the dead hand of propaganda and misinformation with regard to the Sudanese conflict which only serves to prolong the conflict and confuse observers. What is clear is that there has been a remarkable shift in attitude towards Sudan within the international community over the past year or so. This House must accept that, as a result of changes within the country and regionally, Sudan has moved from a position of relative isolation towards international acceptance. In 1999, for example, the European Union commented on signs of improvement in the Sudanese situation. In January of this year the EU acknowledged and welcomed the normalisation of regional relations.
	But, more importantly, we should listen closely to both Sudan's neighbours and the Sudanese themselves. Surely, Sudan's neighbours and regional groupings such as the Intergovernmental Authority on Development and Africa-wide bodies such as the Organisation of African Unity are considerably closer to the issues than we are. Those countries and bodies which interact every day with Sudan are only too aware of developments and changes within that country.

The Earl of Longford: My Lords, I apologise for interrupting. I should like to put a question to the noble Lord who is much more familiar with this matter than I am. The noble Baroness referred to the terrible killings that had occurred recently in the Sudan. Does the noble Lord accept that figure?

Lord Ahmed: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for his question. I said earlier that I was not a specialist in this field. I shall speak only to those matters of which I am aware. I cannot confirm the figures, but later I shall refer to statements made by various countries.
	Khartoum now has improved relations with neighbouring countries such as Egypt, Ethiopia and Eritrea. As many noble Lords will be aware, Sudan is still, technically, subject to the limited diplomatic sanctions imposed in 1996 following the attempted assassination of the Egyptian President, Hosni Mubarak, by Egyptian terrorists while visiting Ethiopia in 1995. Both Egypt and Ethiopia have called for the lifting of those sanctions. The Egyptian Government state that they have seen,
	"a number of positive and encouraging indications on the part of the Sudanese government".
	The Ethiopian Government have stated their conviction that,
	"the concerns that gave rise to the sanctions ... no longer apply ... Ethiopia is, therefore, of the view that it is now time for the lifting of the sanctions imposed on the Sudan".
	Those views were echoed by the Secretary-General of the Organisation of African Unity, Salim Ahmed Salim. Interviewed by Reuters in June this year, he stated:
	"The lifting of sanctions imposed on Sudan is not only urgently called for, but would also positively contribute to efforts aimed at promoting peace, security and stability in the region".
	We should remember that the sanctions were originally imposed at the behest of Egypt, Ethiopia and the OAU. They now wish to see them removed because of positive developments in Sudan. We should also take note that Sudan has had considerable support from the international community in relation to sanctions. South Africa and Algeria, in the capacities as chairmen of the 114-member Non-Aligned Movement and the 22-member Arab Group of states, have also publicly called on the Security Council to withdraw the sanctions. It would appear, therefore, that Sudan has attempted to address international concerns about issues such as support for terrorism.
	As the Minister may be aware, the Sudanese Government have repeatedly invited the United States to send their own anti-terrorist teams to Sudan to investigate any information they may have about Sudan's alleged involvement in terrorism. The American Administration eventually accepted the offer, and an American team comprising experts from the CIA, FBI and State Department have spent considerable time in Sudan this year. Does the Minister have any knowledge about how that has progressed?
	As the Minister will also be aware, in July 2000 the Organisation of African Unity nominated Sudan, over Uganda and Mauritius, to succeed Namibia to represent the African continent as a non-permanent member on the United Nations Security Council. Sudan was ultimately unsuccessful due in large part to American pressure and lobbying.
	Apart from international developments, we should also listen carefully to the Sudanese themselves. It is clear that there has been a significant realignment in Sudanese politics. The last elected Prime Minister of Sudan, the Umma Party leader Sadiq al Mahdi, has returned to Sudan after four years in exile. Last year he stated:
	"There are now circumstances and developments which could favour an agreement on a comprehensive political solution".
	The Umma Party leadership has now returned to Sudan and its armed wing has abandoned the military struggle. There is a new constitution in Sudan, and even as we speak Sudan is holding multi-party presidential and parliamentary elections.
	During my visit to Sudan this year I spent some time in discussions with Umma Party leaders and sensed that things had changed within the country. If the Umma Party and other opposition leaders believe there have been positive changes in Sudanese politics we, too, must give Khartoum the benefit of the doubt.
	I have run out of time and must therefore conclude my contribution.

Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe: My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Baroness for providing another opportunity to debate the affairs of this very tortured country. It came as no surprise to me this morning to receive in my mail a bundle of literature from the European Sudanese Public Affairs Council. As the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, is aware, that has become a familiar body over the years. If one sums up that literature, it calls into question the integrity and credibility of the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, which is a very counter-productive step. We have had the pleasure and honour of knowing the noble Baroness for a number of years. The council should bear in mind that the interests of the noble Baroness in furthering the well-being of communities are not confined to the Sudan. She travels to many parts of the world where people are in trouble and her efforts are greatly appreciated. We do not get literature from those other countries seeking to damage her integrity. The European Sudanese Public Affairs Council really is out on a limb on this matter and should consider its position. What it does is totally counterproductive. We know the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, and the good work that she does.
	I should like to say a few words about the problems of the Christian community in southern Sudan. The noble Baroness covered very well the general position in the country. During the debate on the Queen's Speech on 12th December the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Guildford said:
	"This House needs to know that the Christian community across the world judges our policies here in the light of our Christian history".--[Official Report, 12/12/00; col. 247.]
	That may well be true--I would not dispute it for one moment--but, with respect, it seems to be almost the Church's equivalent of a Fabian summer school. When I was a younger man, at the weekends we used to discuss these topics and have a very pleasant time. I should like to see the Church taking much more interest in the persecution of our Christian brothers and sisters abroad.
	If the Sudanese council does not like what the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, says, let us turn to Christian Aid. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Guildford is chairman of the Board of Christian Aid. I should like to refer to what I found on Christian Aid's website. It stated that Christian Aid's co-ordinator for Northern Ireland, Deborah Doherty, travelled to southern Sudan to report on the work of local partners in the midst of an ongoing war. She talked of arriving in Yei just 24 hours after government of Sudan forces had bombed the town's market place, killing 20 and injuring 54. She went on to refer to a deliberate campaign of bombing against civilians conducted by the Government of Sudan since the beginning of the year. She gave the figures--133 such bombings in November alone.
	That is an additional source to the noble Baroness, Lady Cox. Perhaps we shall be hearing from the Sudanese council calling that into question. To me, this is evidence of brutality against the civilian population and we should take it very seriously. It is the kind of situation to which the dreadful term "collateral damage" has now been attached. What it really means is that ordinary civilians are being killed in large numbers.
	During his speech in the debate on the Queen's Speech the right reverend Prelate went on to talk about Israel. Several noble Lords spoke about Israel and devoted substantial parts of their speeches to it, yet it is a country the size of Wales. There is an almost obsessional interest in Israel. The Sudan is actually 10 times the size of the United Kingdom, yet we cannot generate even a minuscule amount of interest in it compared with the obsessional interest in Israel. I am concerned about generating more interest in the Sudan because it offers an example of the persecution of Christians.
	I am going to weary the House yet again with the quotation which I gave in a speech on the Sudan on 8th December 1998. I drew attention to a report which had been commissioned by the United States State Department and was published in the spring of 1997 by the Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights--Issue No. 1426-1693, Volume 5, No. 2. The following is a quotation from it:
	"Though religious persecution is being experienced by people of different faiths (Moslems, Hindus, Jews, Christians, Bahais and others) the overwhelming majority of cases worldwide have to do with Christians. This situation reflects the fact that Christians are today the single most persecuted religious group in the world".
	We should be much more aware of that. We should do what we can and the Christian Churches should unite not only on the question of giving economic aid to people in other parts of the world but to highlight the persecution of our Christian brothers and sisters wherever it is happening in the world. If we did that, we could not only exert very much more pressure internationally but we could revive the Churches, which complain of falling attendances, and generate a real sense of purpose. We could then help people not only economically but help them to escape this persecution which is far more widespread than is generally realised.

The Earl of Sandwich: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, for this further opportunity to debate Sudan and for again bringing to the House her first-hand accounts from the field. I can share some of her frustrations. I, too, was in Sudan recently on behalf of Christian Aid and Save the Children. I saw for myself some of the terrible effects of civil war in the south--the bombed-out schools and homes, roads blocked by mines, and armoured cars blown up. In the north I met some of the displaced families where 2 million southerners, mostly refugees from the war, live in poor conditions.
	I do not intend to swap atrocities tonight or to heap all the blame at the door of the Sudanese army and air force. As the noble Baroness mentioned, there are many factions on both sides of this war, and the SPLA and its allies are not the shining knights that the United States and others portray. Nevertheless, no one who visits the south can be unaware of the government bombs which fall day after day from Antonov aircraft on small towns like Rumbek and Yirol, which I recently visited, killing civilians, destroying livelihoods and spreading fear among the population. In November alone, I can confirm that the Church agencies reported 133 such bombings. In an attack on Yei market on 20th November at least 18 were killed and 53 wounded, 11 of them critically. Fortunately, the staff of a demining team, Operation Save Innocent Lives, were present and able to transport people to hospital. In the same week, a relief worker who had just completed training with Christian Aid in emergency work was killed by a bomb at Ikotos, in eastern Equatoria.
	Whatever message the Government send to Sudan through the Chief Whip today, they will, I hope, urge the government of Sudan to stop their vicious bombing campaign, observe the ceasefires and allow humanitarian work to proceed.
	But there are other messages. Outsiders are quick to judge and slow to understand the underlying reasons for conflict. War is of course to be avoided, but it is not enough for us to express outrage and urge ceasefires on the government of Sudan or quote UN resolutions in the air. It seems obvious to me that after 17 years, although the UN sanctions have had some limited effect, there is no international political will to apply force in Sudan on the scale of Kosovo, Kuwait or Timor. In other words, there is no present alternative to a policy of constructive engagement.
	This is the policy which our Government are attempting to pursue quietly, while condemning the war and human rights violations. If we meekly follow the line of the US--whatever that may now be--we can hardly expect to have any influence in Khartoum. Unlike the noble Baroness, I should like to see more, not less, contact with Sudan, not only on grounds of our historic links and potential economic ties, but because I believe that we can help the people of Sudan, north and south, through our diplomacy and eventually our aid programmes, slow as they are in coming.
	The conflict in Sudan is not a simple jihad of Muslim north against Christian south. Sudan has a much more sophisticated culture than that. Like Egypt, it has a history of religious tolerance which has been distorted by fanatical minorities and by extreme forms of fundamentalism which is in itself a purifying force. The influence of Dr el Turabi, while important, is currently on the wane--that is a positive sign--while the Umma Party of Sadiq el Mahdi is in the ascendant. The NIF government are unelected and autocratic but they are not monolithic. The army, the civil administration, the wali of Khartoum and the various religious parties all speak with different voices. The opposition forces are equally divided. No internal solutions are in sight, yet the political scene is changing and the government of Sudan do seem to want to rejoin the world and are seeking diplomatic allies.
	In my view, the IGAD process has dragged on for long enough. Only the more active involvement of the powers already represented, including Libya, Egypt, the EU and the new US administration can together arrive at a satisfactory settlement. These powers, including ourselves, need to show the people of Sudan that they are ready to help. As at Addis Ababa in 1972, the Churches and civil society can play a part following their successful initiatives on the ground over the past two years, which already have the potential of a lasting peace.
	In my opinion, this peace must be built on the unity of Sudan, not on two states, but one which recognises ethnic minorities and human rights--and on its economic strength, which is necessarily based on the new oil supplies in Upper Nile, the scene of so much of the fighting today. This oil belongs to the whole country, but if much more time elapses, it will continue to flow into the coffers which fuel the war instead of revitalising the areas which so badly need it.
	This is a country which once had a tremendous agricultural potential, as the noble Lord, Lord Carter, will know. The Gezira scheme, which started in the 1920s, has about half the country's 2 million hectares under irrigation and still claims to be the world's largest para-statal farming enterprise. However, owing to mismanagement, successive droughts and the decline of the cotton industry, this project has become a shadow of its former self, although it could be revived. The Kanana sugar scheme and the ambitious Jonglei Canal have suffered similarly, and even the success of cereal production in the north-east has failed to offset an annual food deficit of over 1 million tonnes. The result has been a collapse of the economy, which is beyond rescue, even given the oil reserves, while the war continues.
	Unfortunately, the UN is also in some disarray. Two years ago, the combination of drought and war tested to the limit Operation Lifeline Sudan (OLS), which is supposed to bring food and medicines to victims. OLS has delivered a great deal of aid, but it has not reached everyone in need; for example in the Nuba mountains. It is at the mercy of both the government of Sudan and the SPLA, neither of which respect ceasefires which they themselves have painstakingly agreed. The NGOs are divided in their allegiance to Operation Lifeline Sudan. The UN is low in morale and attempting to redeploy, with the United Nations Development Programme itself drastically cutting its traditional development projects.
	Despite the cruelty of the bombings and the war, there are many other reasons for hope. I have already mentioned the peace process. The conflict continues, but other opportunities for development are already presenting themselves. Some NGOs, including Christian Aid, Save the Children, Oxfam and CARE, have remained in both the north and the south throughout the war and are reliable channels of development aid as well as emergency relief. Our embassy is well aware of this and is very active, but it is time that the whole Government recognised the long-term value of much of these agencies' humanitarian work and interpreted their requests more generously.
	Having spent a week in Bahr el Ghazal, I know how desperate are the needs. Health centres and schools need to be resupplied, if not completely rebuilt. The rehabilitation of health, education and water supply projects do not always imply putting up buildings which can be targeted from the air. Basic communications must be improved; it took me several hours to travel 100 miles along a causeway across flood plains close to the Nile. Markets need to be revived as trade is almost at a standstill. Goods are being carried long distances on bicycles, which provide the only transport when no other vehicles are available.
	There are now many professional Sudanese development agencies ready to carry out these tasks, given the resources. I shall mention only one which I met, the Bahr el Ghazal Youth Development Association (BYDA), which has an impressive record of civic education, self-help and community development, encouraging even people in desperate need to support themselves.
	Above all, people need to be confident that the outside world is willing to help. The dioceses of Salisbury and Bradford also provide important links. With nearly a generation lost, there is a great deal to be done to restore our educational and English language ties through such bodies as the British Council, which would like to expand its work, and Skills for Southern Sudan, which has recently carried out a fascinating survey based on its experience of preparatory training in areas of conflict such as Uganda and southern Africa.
	Finally, I should like to quote from an appeal by three aid agencies involved in Sudan, which stated:
	"The world's governments must act urgently, coherently and innovatively if we are to end the tragic cycle of Sudan's suffering. Humanitarian assistance is vital, but not enough. The UN Security Council and its member states must make use of every means at their disposal to bring Africa's longest running war, finally, to a close".

The Earl of Longford: My Lords, there are only three words with which I can suitably begin my few remarks: "Non sum dignus"--I am not worthy to take part in a discussion of the kind we have had today. We have heard four speakers, all of whom have first-hand knowledge of the Sudan and who have recently visited that country. We have just listened to a moving address from the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, who undoubtedly is one of the finest representatives of the younger generation in this House today.
	I have to confess to a bias. I believe that the rules on the declaration of one's interests have been tightened up of late, even where no financial connection is concerned. Given that, I shall have to declare my interest in support of the noble Baroness, Lady Cox. We do not know each other on a personal basis, but I shall express my admiration for her. I am glad, too, that the noble Lord, Lord Elton, is to say a few words in the gap. He leads an inspired prayer group which I attend regularly. At almost every meeting we pray for the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, as she goes about her dangerous work. She travels all over the world working on behalf of Christianity and humanity. I start, therefore, with a bias in favour of anything she says. I know that the noble Baroness has some enemies. I recently saw a document attacking her. However, due to partial sightedness, I am lucky in that I cannot read all that much. That document went very quickly into the wastepaper basket. So far as I am concerned, the enemies of the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, might as well go and jump in the lake.
	I understand that we shall not vote on this matter, but I wonder whether we take seriously enough the whole issue? Surely, we must be horrified by the terrible stories we have heard today. Whether things are slightly better or slightly worse, the whole situation is pretty awful. I believe I heard the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, say that some 2 million people have been killed in the Sudan. Are we not bothered by that? Do we not feel that we should do something about it? However, I know that this little island cannot control the whole world and put everything right.
	Recently I met a taxi driver who had just returned from Cambodia. He told me that some 50 per cent of the population is 15 years old or under, all the older people having been murdered. The most awful things are happening all over the world. But do we not have a special responsibility towards the Sudan? Perhaps I am a little biased, other than in my tremendous admiration for the noble Baroness, Lady Cox. I have mentioned before my only claim which may be unique to this discussion. Some 85 years ago I had the pleasure of meeting Lord Kitchener. I was only a little chap. That great man was attending a garden party given by my grandmother, Lady Jersey, at Osterley Park. The great man bent over and said to me, "Who are you, my little man?". I responded by saying, "I am the grandson of grandmama". That was accepted. I shall always think of Lord Kitchener of Khartoum as a kindly old gentleman.
	More recently, I have become a close friend of Lady Aitken, the mother of Jonathan Aitken. Her father, who became Lord Rugby, whom I came to know later by playing golf with him in Abu Dhabi where he was what we would now call the ambassador, was at one time Governor-General of the Sudan. As a girl, Lady Aitken, often went out there to stay. She said--I heard it from many sources--that there was a very close relationship between the British and the Sudanese, that the British liked the Sudanese and the Sudanese respected the British. There has been a connection between Britain and the Sudan--this is my only point and I shall sit down when I have made it--and I suggest that, although we cannot control the whole world and put it to rights, we have a special responsibility to act to improve matters in the Sudan. It is a responsibility that we are not shouldering at present. I hope that we shall do better in the future.

Lord Elton: My Lords, I speak with great diffidence, but at least my interests have been declared by the noble Earl, Lord Longford. I am moved to speak because today we started by considering the persecution and slaughter of Christians in Indonesia at the hands of a Muslim jihad and we are concluding by considering the slaughter, among others, of Christians in the Sudan under a Muslim government imposing Sharia law. To both, my noble friend Lady Cox has directed the attention of this House. She is a combination of a roving Christian ambassador and a reconnaissance force for the Churches, who has performed an enormously valuable service to us and continues to do so.
	As to the specific issue we are debating, it is beyond question that the atrocities she has described have taken and are taking place. Nothing the noble Lord, Lord Ahmed, has said and nothing the noble Lord, Lord Cocks, has received through the post has actually gainsaid the fact that she, personally, has brought people out of slavery. We could be talking about the Middle Ages; this is a lesser of the many evils that are being perpetrated.
	How do we as a country with a Christian tradition, and with many practising Christians in government and opposition, try to stop this happening? The first thing I would suggest, in the few words that convention permits me, is that the moment the word "oil" emerges, all governments' motives are suspect. I ask Her Majesty's Government to recognise the proper priorities in this case, which are not economic but compassionate and moral. It does not matter what is the faith or the colour of the skin of the people who are suffering. They are fellow religionists with me, but I would have as great a duty to them if they were not. That goes also for the Government.
	The second question is how can we exert ourselves to bring the killing to an end. Here we have a contradiction of views between people of equal experience and commitment as to whether it should be through constructive engagement or outright and arms' length condemnation. There can be no dispute that there must be outright condemnation; the question is whether that should be at arms' length. There should be clear alternatives offered to the Government of the Sudan between some kind of amity brought about by a cessation of this obscene violence and the availability of aid, counsel and support.
	We as a country have a duty in the world to support what is right and to oppose what is wrong. Whenever in the past we have failed to do this we have finished up in the most appalling mess; a great many people have been killed, and in the end a lot of them have been British. This is happening on a different continent and the threat, the danger, of temporisation may therefore seem less because it is further away. But the world is a great deal smaller now than it was in 1939 and a great deal smaller still than it was in 1914. I do not think that we can abandon moral imperatives without inviting physical disaster. I urge the Government to be round in their condemnation of what is being done, whatever may be the commercial risk. In the end, the risk of not doing that is much greater.

Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, I had not intended to speak in the debate. I would not have done so had I not received this morning--like other noble Lords--an extraordinary package from the European Sudanese Public Affairs Council consisting of a letter from a Mr David Hoile, of whose interests one is not aware, and no less than two pamphlets and a booklet. The booklet runs to 120 pages and does not carry a price tag. One can only assume that it is for distribution purposes and not for open market consumption.
	I intervene merely to underline what other noble Lords have said about my noble friend Lady Cox, with whom I have had the privilege to be associated for nearly 20 years-- first in her capacity as a nurse when she had something to say to the last but one Conservative government about the plight of nurses in this country. She was courageous enough to take on my noble friend Lady Thatcher at the height of her power and, as a Conservative Peeress, marched down Whitehall arm in arm with trade unionists in protest against what was then happening in the nursing profession. We see today how right she was.
	We might have done better in this country if we had heeded what my noble friend also had to say about what was going on in our education system. We did not, and the Labour Government are doing their best today to sort out the problems created at that time which could perhaps have been solved slightly earlier.
	My noble friend's interests then took her overseas to many areas of the world where she has become a voice for the voiceless. I was privileged 10 years ago to go with her to Nagorno Karabakh, a troubled part of the world where she has done much for the Armenian community.
	I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Ahmed. It is time for the dead hand of propaganda to be removed from this debate. We should listen to my noble friend Lady Cox.

Lord Avebury: My Lords, the greatest tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, is that every time she raises the subject of Sudan, we all receive this flood of bumph from the European Sudanese Public Affairs Council and the egregious Mr Hoile, who is sometimes referred to as "oily Hoile". Unlike some other noble Lords, I always read his pamphlets with great care, except when they arrive immediately before a debate and I do not have time to do anything more than open them. I can assure Mr Hoile that I shall read his remarks, but not until after the debate. He must send them a little earlier if he wants me to entertain them before I speak.
	I have been in correspondence with Mr Hoile on a number of occasions. I have asked him if he would tell me how the European Sudanese Public Affairs Council is financed, and I have yet to receive any response. I should like to know. It is a matter of legitimate interest to everyone who is in receipt of these documents.
	Once again, we are greatly in the debt of the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, for drawing our attention to the formidable problems of Sudan, which has suffered, as she said, from the effects of a civil war of unparalleled ferocity. She pointed out that it has resulted in the deaths of 2 million people and the displacement of another 5 million people.
	Like many other countries in Africa, Sudan was carved out by the British imperialists, with no regard to the affinities of its people, bringing together under one sovereignty the Arab and Muslim inhabitants of the north and the African Christian and animist peoples of the south. Not only were those differences the causes of the conflict but, as the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, said, there are many other subdivisions which equally have led to strife among the people. But that is the main division and the reason for this civil war.
	It has proved impossible to find a solution through the efforts of IGAD, the forum in which the states of the region come together, mainly because the NIF regime prefers to impose its will on the south by military force rather than to negotiate on the basis of self-determination for the south. However, IGAD has at least produced a Declaration of Principles which calls for a referendum, and the latest talks have been about what areas constitute the south for the purposes of this test of public opinion.
	The south has made its own mistakes. Colonel Garang's policy of "New Sudan", which entailed an alliance with northern opposition forces, is in tatters, as the leader of the NDA, Mohamed Osman El Mirghani, prepares to defect and Sadiq el-Mahdi, leader of the Umma Party--as the noble Lord, Lord Ahmed, pointed out--made a triumphant return to Khartoum last month, leaving the southerners effectively on their own. The so-called NDA forces, which seem to have been entirely southern SPLA troops, suffered a crushing defeat outsided Hamish Koreib in eastern Sudan at the beginning of November, showing the folly of Garang in trying to widen the conflict into a revolution against the NIF regime throughout the country.
	The return of el-Mahdi could be a catalyst for change. He has been characterised in the past as having intrinsically limited support because he is the leader of the Ansar sect, and that is represented by the Umma Party, but it was estimated that as many as 2 million people turned out to meet him when he arrived back in Khartoum on the 23rd November. He immediately struck a conciliatory note when he said to a crowd of several hundred thousand at Friday prayers the day after his return that in a country as diverse as Sudan in terms of culture and religion, there was not going to be an Islamic state. He was even more daring when he pointed out that the laws of Islam as handed down by the Prophet had changed very little, while the world had changed enormously. He said that Muslim scholars and jurisprudence had to adapt and change the laws. El-Mahdi also insists that the agreement he has made with the NIF regime contains the right of self-determination for the south, which is lacking in the Libyan-Egyptian proposals endorsed by the NDA.
	While the break between General el-Beshir and Dr Hasan el-Turabi signalled the abandonment of the hard line ideology previously adopted by the regime, and thus prepared the ground for a return to pluralism, it is not yet clear how the Umma Party and the DUP can play any immediate role in determining the policy of the state. The regime was determined to proceed with the presidential and parliamentary elections that are now being held over a 10-day period ending on 23rd December. But in 112 of the 360 constituencies there were no candidates other than those of the government; in the remainder, the main opposition parties urged a boycott and very few people have gone to the polls, at least in Khartoum. The new parliament will thus lack any democratic legitimacy, while in the presidential election el-Beshir's opponents are a former incumbent who was deposed in the coup of 1985 and three unknowns. The real opposition will continue to be extra-parliamentary, and that cannot be a recipe for greater stability in Sudan over the next five years.
	On the human rights front, the situation remains as bad as ever. In spite of an order by el-Beshir to stop bombing in the south, warplanes resumed the indiscriminate attacks on civilians in July, as Susan Rice saw for herself when she visited the south last month. The town of Yei has been mentioned several times. It has suffered repeated attacks; an attack in the middle of November killed 40 people and put the only hospital out of action, supposedly as a message to Susan Rice, who was due to visit Yei but did not in fact go there.
	Susan Rice met women freed from slavery, and demanded an end to what she called a heinous practice. The UN estimates that 15,000 southerners have been abducted in raids by tribesmen from the north, encouraged by their government, over the past 10 years and taken to the north as slaves.
	Although el-Beshir speaks about religious tolerance and co-existence, Christians are not allowed to build churches; apostasy from Islam is punishable by death; and family law is heavily biased against non-Muslims. Students, political activists and human rights defenders are targeted. They are frequently detained without trial, and a number have been murdered by agents of the state.
	All these and other issues have been covered by the Special Rapporteur in his report to the General Assembly published in September this year. He confirms allegations that have been made about particular human rights violations associated with oil developments in Upper Nile. Ethnic cleansing has replaced the local Dinka and Nuer people with northern Baggara tribesmen and the oil-producing area is being violently Arabised. I agree with the comment of the noble Lord, Lord Elton, that oil is a dangerous catalyst for human rights violations. Although a humanitarian crisis is developing, OLS has been prohibited from bringing in aid, and 40,000 displaced people in Bentiu are mostly in an alarming nutritional state. The Special Rapporteur says that further influxes may be catastrophic.
	On top of all the man-made disasters, Sudan is beginning to suffer drought in the south and west of the country, in Darfur and Kordofan. The WFP country office says that food stock levels are at a dangerously low level, cereal prices are rising and livestock prices are plummeting; and wells, dams and other water resources are drying up. About 700,000 people are said to be affected.
	What can Britain do? We have provided financial and political support for a permanent negotiating secretariat in Nairobi and we are in regular contact with all the parties, pressing the case for talks and explaining the benefits that peace would bring to the civilian population. I think that we should go further and tell Khartoum that we deplore the resumption of bombing, and that we hope that they will refrain from new offensive operations in the dry season. We should also tell John Garang that he is off-side in opening hostilities anywhere outside the south. We should try to understand what Sadiq el-Mahdi's agenda is, and how this can be pursued outside the framework of parliamentary politics; and we should urge General el-Beshir to hold talks with el-Mahdi, and with the DUP, to establish a basis for returning to a genuine multi-party system based on religious and ethnic equality, and implementation of the IGAD Declaration of Principles.

Baroness Rawlings: My Lords, I, too, am grateful to my noble friend Lady Cox for giving us the opportunity to discuss this vitally important subject. As always, my noble friend speaks with great authority and first-hand knowledge on these sensitive subjects, in a country where so much still needs to be done. Sadly, it is in complex areas such as these that the West has so many shortcomings. As the noble Lord, Lord Cocks, rightly said, we do not show nearly enough interest in the Sudan.
	It is timely, too, that we should be having this debate so close to Christmas and that we should take time to think of people who are so less fortunate than we are in this country. I hope that some help may come out of this debate for an area that has been blighted for so long--especially as we are lucky enough to have the noble Lord the Government Chief Whip to answer it.
	I read through the BBC World Service briefing on the history of Sudan since its independence in 1956; it is a sorry tale. It is a country with a litany of disasters and catastrophes as it lurches towards yet another coup or civil war. It has one of the world's worst human rights records. Even as recently as September this year, the Governor of Khartoum issued a decree barring women from working in public places. The imposition of Sharia law will certainly restrict individual freedoms still further. All this is taking place in the largest country in Africa--a beautiful place, dominated by the Blue and White Nile so well described in Alan Moorehead's eponymous books.
	In the short time that is available I shall concentrate briefly on three areas, all of which are inter-related: the oil revenues, mentioned by my noble friend Lord Elton in his superb speech; the human rights situation; and the latest political position.
	The big change in Sudan is the discovery of oil: the first oil exports in 1999 gave a growth rate of nearly 40 per cent in one year. This means that its revenue has grown from 530 million to 1,327 million dollars. Unfortunately, little of this enormous revenue has been spent on education, healthcare, or on measures to alleviate the terrible poverty. Reports even tell us that more and more is being spent on weapons. Until democracy is properly rooted, the advent of the oil revenues will do nothing for the population as a whole. Her Majesty's Government have constantly been questioned in both Houses as to what pressure we have put on the Sudanese Government. I ask the Minister that same question again tonight. Further, can the noble Lord tell us what is our latest aid policy in the light of all their new-found wealth?
	I turn to my second point. I am embarrassed and, like the noble Earl, Lord Longford, I feel unworthy because we have so little time to address the really serious problems that stem from the violation of human rights in Sudan. If we had more time, I would try to do it justice. I wholeheartedly agree with my noble friend Lady Cox, the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, and my noble friend Lord Elton, all of whom have described the horror of the present human rights situation in Sudan far more eloquently than I could have done.
	Thirdly, I turn to the political situation. No resolution has yet been found to the dilemma of whether government should be using religious, strict Islamic law or secular law. That is one of their main problems. Even though the noble Baroness, Lady Symons of Vernham Dean, was unsure in her response to my question on October 19th, can the Minister say whether we still consider Sudan a terrorist state? With the United States, China, France and Russia, we support Her Majesty's Government on having blocked Sudan becoming a permanent member of the UN Security Council. The Freedom House, a human rights group, recently denounced the Sudanese Government as "genocidal".
	As we have heard, the current situation in Sudan is horrific. It is even more horrific as the election that is now being held is unlikely to change anything. The European Union declined to send official observers, which means that we did not send any. There is also state censorship of the media, adding to our lack of confidence in the proceedings. Can the Minister say how the Government will know that these were fair elections? Further, what are the plans of Her Majesty's Government in respect of Sudan after the election?
	Such advances as have been made in terms of democracy have been put on hold, while the sporadic fighting between the north, mainly Muslim, and the south, mainly Christian, has continued with only 11 years of peace since 1956. Can the Minister say to what extent the Government are prepared, especially in the light of the publication of the recent White Paper, to use their influence in the promotion of good governance in line with their ethical foreign policy? I look forward to hearing the response of the Government Chief Whip to that and all the other questions that have been raised tonight.

Lord Carter: My Lords, like other noble Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, for initiating this debate and for her continuing interest in the fortunes of the Sudanese people. We have had an excellent debate. I shall, with some trepidation, do my best to reply in the time that is available to me. However, if I am not able to reply to all the points raised, I shall, as always, ensure that the noble Lords receive a reply in writing.
	I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Elton, referred to the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, as a "reconnaissance force". I think that all governments would prefer to call her a "rapid reaction force"--that is, if the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, does not mind my using that phrase!
	All those who have spoken in the debate agree that the current situation in Sudan is both tragic and complex. However, regrettably, it is not a new one, nor indeed is the suffering in that country. As we all know, the tragedy of the continuing civil war has not only claimed the lives of millions of Sudanese of more than one generation; it has also prevented the development of the country and its relations with its neighbours and the international community.
	The Government believe that peace is the only long-term answer to the suffering of the Sudanese people. We have given the search for peace in the Sudan a new priority. Indeed, to pick up the words used by the noble Lord, Lord Elton, compassion and morality must be at the forefront of our endeavours. We have engaged with all sides to the conflict. The Sudanese Government and the opposition parties are well aware of our views. Recent events in Khartoum and elsewhere in the region, as hinted at in the debate, suggest that it is time for a concerted push for peace. The international community should do all that it can to help.
	It may be useful if I outline a brief history of the most recent international efforts to promote peace in Sudan. The Intergovernmental Authority on Development (IGAD) launched an initiative in September 1993 to mediate an end to the civil war in southern Sudan. IGAD groups include Kenya, Ethiopia, Sudan, Uganda and Eritrea, along with Djibouti and Somalia.
	In May 1994, IGAD adopted a declaration of principles for settlement of the conflict. At the time, the Government of Sudan rejected the declaration. The previous British government, along with the governments of the Netherlands, Norway, Italy and the United States formed the Friends of IGAD to support IGAD's efforts. The Friends of IGAD offered both diplomatic and material support to the peace process. But, as I am sure noble Lords will know, the IGAD process ground to a halt in May 1995. However, under concerted military and diplomatic pressure, the Government of Sudan agreed in 1997 to renewed IGAD talks on the basis of the declaration of principles. That is, indeed, a step forward.
	International efforts to support the IGAD process have intensified in the past two years. The IGAD Partners Forum--or IPF, as the Friends of IGAD is now known--has provided political and financial support to the IGAD secretariat. The British Government continue to be an active member of the IPF and hosted a meeting in London in October of a number of key member countries. The co-chairs of the IPF, Norway and Italy, expect to call an IPF meeting in Rome early in the new year. Therefore, efforts are continuing.
	We see IGAD as the best chance to bring about a negotiated peace settlement and support the IGAD declaration of principles as the basis for settlement of the civil war. One reason for our support of IGAD is that the two main parties to the conflict--the Government of Sudan and the SPLM/A--have told us that they regard it as the only serious forum for negotiation. There are other initiatives aimed at promoting peace in Sudan. We welcome that interest, particularly in the region. The latter was also hinted at during the debate. However, we are keen to ensure that all these initiatives work alongside the IGAD process. We would not want to allow the parties to "forum hop" when the going gets tough, as no doubt it will.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Cox, rightly condemns human rights abuses in Sudan. The Government share her concerns. Again, the European Union sponsored resolutions at this year's UN Commission on Human Rights and the UN General Assembly set these out. Human rights also form part of the EU-Sudan dialogue, which is about to enter its second year. There has been some progress: for example, the work of the Committee for the Eradication of the Abduction of Women and Children; agreement with the Office for the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights on having a representative in Khartoum; a greater number of visits by monitors; and a UN needs assessment mission being allowed into the Nuba mountains.
	However, there are still many more issues to be addressed. Like the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, we find the aerial bombings in southern Sudan completely unacceptable. Our ambassador in Khartoum has made our views absolutely clear to the Government of Sudan. He did so most recently last Tuesday. But the problem of aerial bombings emphasises yet again the need for peace. We can argue with the Sudanese Government about the political acceptability of these bombings and, indeed, their military effectiveness. But by achieving a ceasefire in the first instance we would remove the government's argument of self-defence. A peace settlement would not only stop the killing of Sudanese people from all groups; it would also pave the way for the country's full re-integration into the international community.
	We have heard much today, and rightly so, about the suffering of the Sudanese people. The British Government share the concerns of all who worry about their humanitarian plight. The United Kingdom is one of the largest bilateral donors of humanitarian assistance to Sudan. We have committed over #200 million since 1991. But, of course, the humanitarian situation is not helped by the civil war. We shall continue to work with the United Nations, international NGOs and others to deliver the humanitarian assistance which is required but we cannot consider development assistance programmes until the fighting has stopped.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Cox, mentioned reports of the possible use of chemical weapons by the Government of Sudan. We take all reports of the use of these weapons seriously. As the noble Baroness knows, tests of particular samples at CBD Porton Down and at US and Finnish laboratories showed no evidence to substantiate allegations that chemical weapons were used in specific incidents in Sudan. Sudan acceded to the Chemical Weapons Convention last year. The appropriate mechanism is therefore now in place to deal with future investigations. We continue to encourage the Government of Sudan to co-operate in the fight against international terrorism. I shall return to that.
	Despite the hopeful remarks of my noble friend Lord Ahmed, the British Government fully support the EU arms embargo against Sudan and expect it to remain as long as the civil war continues. All export licence applications are rigorously assessed to determine the risk of the proposed export being misused in contravention of our national export licensing criteria and those in the EU Code of Conduct on Arms Exports, including the risk of diversion or re-export to undesirable end users. We have pressed for oil revenues to be used for development projects and for transparency in the oil account. In return, the Government of Sudan have made some public assurances to this effect. We shall look to them to honour those assurances and shall remain firmly focused on this issue. The FCO and the DTI have no ongoing campaign promoting investment in the Sudanese oil industry, nor do we have any policy to halt all commercial interests.
	The abduction of women and children is a serious and distressing issue to which we pay particular attention. As I have mentioned, the European Union sponsored UN Commission on Human Rights resolutions last year and this. These called on the Government of Sudan to investigate reports of abduction, bring to trial persons suspected of involvement and accept international participation in the investigation into the cause of abduction. Following from this, the Government of Sudan established the Committee for the Eradication of the Abduction of Women and Children last year which is working with UNICEF and Save the Children. So far, we understand that the committee has facilitated the return of over 300 abductees. There is still much work to be done. We shall be looking for more action as a result of this initiative. Through the EU we have been part funding the committee and our ambassador has been active in visiting the areas affected and attending workshops in order to show our concern and to urge much greater effort.
	We regularly denounce slavery to give a lead to our European partners. As I have just said, the ambassador regularly attends workshops of the Committee for the Eradication of the Abduction of Women and Children and Her Majesty's Government support the work of UNICEF and Save the Children in the return of abductees.
	As noble Lords will be aware, we now have a fully operational embassy in Khartoum. The British Government use that important channel to ensure that the Government of Sudan are made fully aware of our concerns in a timely way.
	I shall respond to some of the questions that were raised. The noble Baroness, Lady Cox, asked about no fly zones and safe havens. I shall reply to the noble Baroness in writing and place a copy of the reply in the Library as the matter requires a little more research than we have time for this evening. It is important that the critical dialogue which we pursue with our EU partners brings home to the Government of Sudan the weight of international opinion. This has led to results such as the creation of the committee I mentioned on abduction. The critical dialogue involves criticism. The criticism would be easily dismissed without that broader dialogue. To pick up the phrase of the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, we wish to see constructive engagement.
	I believe that the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, mentioned evidence of Sudanese support for terrorism. The UN imposed sanctions and adopted Security Council Resolution 1054 in April 1996 which called on the Government of Sudan to ensure the extradition of three suspects in the attempted assassination of President Mubarak and to desist from engaging in terrorist activities. The UN sanctions have not yet been suspended or lifted. We continue to encourage the Government of Sudan to co-operate in the fight against international terrorism. I understand that the Security Council may consider the issue again in April.
	My noble friend Lord Ahmed asked about Chinese soldiers and Scud missiles. We have no evidence to support charges that there are hundreds of thousands of Chinese soldiers or, indeed, any number of Scud missiles in Sudan. The noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings, asked about the elections in Sudan. We, as members of the European Union, were party to the decision not to send election monitors. Appropriate conditions were not in place for the proper monitoring of the elections. It is, of course, unfortunate that the opposition decided not to take part in the elections. We shall continue to urge the Sudanese Government to talk to the opposition parties where possible.
	The noble Baroness's Question is wide-ranging. I have tried to give as full a reply as possible. But in essence our approach to Sudan is dictated by a belief that the only way to end the terrible human suffering in Sudan is through a negotiated settlement to the war. Peace negotiations are therefore our overriding priority and recent events have given us more reason to press ahead. The UK has been at the heart of international efforts to help reinvigorate the regional peace initiative, IGAD, and seek other ways of putting real impetus into the talks.
	Our return to Khartoum has ensured that we are once again in an excellent position to influence all the parties to the conflict. Her Majesty's Government remain convinced that constructive and critical engagement with all concerned is the most productive policy.

The Earl of Sandwich: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, why has he not mentioned the United States, given that we are now in a promising situation with a new administration taking seriously the problems of the Middle East? Is there any particular reason why the noble Lord did not mention the United States?

Lord Carter: My Lords, the fact that it is a new administration makes me a little cautious in terms of giving a quick reply to the noble Lord. I shall write to him and place a copy of the reply in the Library.

House adjourned at twenty minutes past six o'clock.